Jump to content

Talk:Laurie Nash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLaurie Nash has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 23, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 14, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Undue weight on bowling average

[edit]

He played in two Tests, and one of them was a dreadful sticky, in which he took 5/22, which was on a par with South Africa's 20/81. This is skewing his stats (apart from the fact we don't know if he could have sustained the 5/104 odd for any lenght of time either) and I think maybe the stat shouldn't be in the lead because it can be misleading. It would be similar to saying that Harvey has a 100% win rate as captain, he only played in one Test. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for feedback; have omitted it from lead. --Roisterer (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck :) The scorecard refs looks a bit unwell. Also can you use another ref apart from Stats.Rleague.com? As it isn't considered entirely reliable. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By whom and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.98.97 (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try to make the scorecard refs healthier. Not sure about an alternative to stas.rleague but I'll see what I can dig up. Cheers. --Roisterer (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to potential Good Article reviewers

[edit]

I nominated this article and unfortunately I will be away on business for two weeks. All going well I will return the weekend of 7 November. If you're looking to review this article, feel free to kick back until my return when I can give the review my full attention, cheers. --Roisterer (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back so let the reviewing begin! --Roisterer (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the review. I don't know how to transclude it onto the talk page, but if you do feel free to do so. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Laurie Nash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WFCforLife (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a bit of experience at WP:FLC, but this is my first GA review. I feel I'm ready. As a starting point I think this will pass criteria 2, 5 and 6 once the following are addressed:

  • I'm familiar enough with cricket to know that the sources used for that are okay, but what makes Stats.rleague.com and Full Points Footy reliable sources?
While I believe both to be reliable, I have replaced the full points references and will do the same with the stats.rleague as soon as I find appropriate replacements (this should happen tomorrow).
There remains one stats.rleague ref as I don't currently have another source for it. I'll keep looking.
  • Why is the date italicised for ref 61, but not other online ones?

 Done I de-italicised ref 61, which was a mistake.

  • There's inconsistency in the image captions over whether or not full stops (.) are used. If the caption could feasibly be a stand-alone sentence then a full stop should be used.

 Done To be on the safe side, I added a full stop to the end of every caption.

  • Copyright wise, the person who created the portrait of his father is unidentified. In the UK if the author is unknown, you could assume that they died before 1939 (our equivalent of 1955). I reckon it's a similar case for Australia, but could you just confirm this? I think it's a great addition to the article, but as GAs are examples of wikipedia's better work I'd rather be on the safe side. All the other images are fine.
I've always understood Australian copyright law to be pre-55. As the image was created early 1900s, we can be extremely confident that the creator of the image would have died pre-55 and probably pre-1939.

I don't have any significant concerns about 1, 3 and 4, and the issues I'm likely to raise tomorrow will probably be of a similar nature to the ones above. As an indicator, the prose is of a very good standard, but that's no excuse for me not to give the review it deserves.

I've got this watched, and I intend to be back tomorrow with the rest of the feedback. Just in case though, let me know if I take more than a day or so to reply to anything. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I'll work on it. --Roisterer (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are the things I've spotted in the prose. The very fact that I've gone into this sort of detail is testament to how good the prose as a whole is. It certainly covers the right things, with the right weight. It's my first review so sorry if some of these are a little pedantic, and feel free to correct me if I've made any errors.

Potential POV

[edit]
  • "Leading" is unnecessary in the opening sentence- the quote serves the same purpose.

 Done

  • Similarly in 1937, "continued to star" seems a bit POV. I don't dispute that he was a star, just that it's more encyclopaedic to let the facts make this point.

 Done

Jargon

[edit]
  • On the first use, the statistics should be explained so that someone with only a trivial interest in the sport can understand. Consider changing "Nash played two Test matches for Australia, taking 10 wickets at 12.80 and scoring 30 runs at 15.00." to "Nash played two Test matches for Australia, taking 10 wickets at a bowling average of 12.80 runs conceeded per wicket, and scoring 30 runs at a batting average of 15 runs per wicket conceeded." I know that's a bit wordy (feel free to improve the prose), but once you've done that once you can assume that the reader understands the statistic.

 Done

  • Each Australian rules position used in the prose should be wikilinked on first occurance.

 Done

  • What's "a flag" (in the post-VFL section)?

 Done

  • Duck should be wikilinked on first occurance.

 Done

Readability

[edit]
  • The third paragraph of the lead is an extremely long sentence that just runs and runs. Consider breaking it into two sentences.

 Done

  • I may have missed this. The lead mentions that he was the first professional club cricketer, but I can't find a mention of this in the body.
It's listed under "Transfer to Camberwell".
  • In the last paragraph of early life, was it Nash or his dad who entered the hotel business?

 Done

  • "with City and Tasmanian team mate Ted Pickett acting as best man." is wrong. If he's a team mate in both teams, it should be "City and Tasmania", and if he's a City team mate from Tasmania it should read "Tasmanian City team mate".

 Done

  • In the bodyline, the last three paragraphs can all be joined into one in my opinion; they're all related.

 Done

  • 'Nash was adjudged "Finest defender since World War I"' should be 'Nash was adjudged the "Finest defender since World War I"'.

 Done

  • In the 1934 section, the second and third paragraphs can be merged.

 Done

  • In 1936, first and second paragraphs can be merged, and in 1937 second and third paragraphs can be merged.

 Done

  • Transfer to Camberwell: the third and fourth paragraphs can be merged, and the order need tweaking. One minute he's winning the 1939 Best and Fairest, the next he's making his Camberwell debut in 1938.

 Done There are references to both his footballing and cricketing careers.

  • Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the postwar sport section can probably be merged. I think a good case can be made for either keeping them separate or consolidating them.

 Done

Miscellaneous

[edit]
  • I'm not an expert on them, but I believe that a semi colon shouldn't be followed by "and". In the second paragraph I think you can remove the "and," from that sentence.

 Done

  • Numbering should always be consistent when mentioning two of the same or comparible things, per WP:ORDINAL. I've edited the Tasmania section as an example of what I mean.

 Done

  • In 1935, ref should come after comma.

 Done

  • In the second paragraph of cricketing wilderness it might be worth explaining the significance of 10/35. Obviously care needs to be taken not to be POV, but a casual reader probably won't be aware just how rare this achievement is, and/or that an innings consists of a total of 10 wickets.

 Done I hope what I've done is ok - I didn't want to have to spend too much time trying to explain the significance of ten wickets.

  • (I know this is pedantic) but £ should probably wikilink to Australian pound on the first occurance. I only say this because not everyone will be aware that Australia once used pounds.

 Done

  • On a related note, why are both £ and ₤ used in the article?

 Done changed so that it's consistent (I hadn't realised I'd used two different symbols)

  • "One rumour purported that Nash had used a martial arts move he had been taught in the army to knock Chitty out" should be followed by a comma.

 Done

Good work. I'm afraid I'm busier than I had expected this week. I don't forsee any problems in promoting, but it would be wrong of me to do it without going through the changes and having a last quick read through. Any changes that needed to be made on that last read I would do myself, unless it's something major that I've missed. I promise that this will happen within the next 72 hours, just thought I should keep you up to date. WFCforLife (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I appreciate your input. --Roisterer (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did intend to do any changes myself, but I genuinely am not sure what a flag is. I'm guessing it is a league win, but I'm not certain enough to edit. I'm not calling for the word to be removed (indeed I encourage it to be kept), but it does affect the understanding of the paragraph at the moment. A wikilink, or a brief definition footnote of the form <ref>A flag is...</ref> would be fine. Drop me a message when that's done, and I'll gladly promote. WFCforLife (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've promoted the article. You might want to see at WP:CRICKET or WP:AFL whether they believe the article is close to meeting the FA criteria, and at that stage consider a peer review or FAC. Personally I believe it isn't too far off, and that with a bit of proof reading and agreement at those wikiprojects that everything is covered with the right weight this would have a reasonable chance. Well done! WFCforLife (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laurie Nash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Laurie Nash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laurie Nash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laurie_Nash&oldid=1209315403"