Talk:John the bookmaker controversy/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi. I am reviewing your article John the bookmaker controversy and will be entering my comments on this page. Initially, it seems to be very well done. I will list specific issues I find below. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I did a little copy editing (I hope you don't mind) and some wikilinking of terms unfamiliar to the general reader.
  • "obtain pitch and weather information" - of what significance is this information? What sort of weather information, for example, would be known by the crickers but not by weathermen?
  • (From an uninvolved editor, hope nobody minds) That is precisely one of the points that raised controversy; why would players be paid to provide information on the weather? The inference is that the payments were either (a) for more sensitive information with "weather" used as a cover or (b) a "softly-softly" approach to see if there was interest in supplying more sensitive information down the track. The pitch however is something of great interest to players and bookies alike as it has a large influence on the game. See Cricket pitch#State of the pitch.
    • Strange, I couldn't get that link about pitch to load properly. Anyway, perhaps some description of its importance would make the article more interesting to the general reader. I did wikilink it to Cricket pitch and I linked other cricket terms that I could find, like Test match. But you can't expect the general reader to go through a long articles like that to be able to understand the important points of the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added examples on how pitch conditions affect the tactics and give an insight into the play. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "information on team tactics selection policies" - perhaps you could be clearer what this is
  • The players didn't tell them what these were, as then they would be divulging the the tactics, but I gave some generic examples of tactical consisderations. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "significant time" - all quotes need a reference, even in the lede
  • "to set an example for young followers of cricket" - would young cricket fams be less stilted?
  • I don't know what you mean by "less stilted" but it means that sports stars are meant to be good role models as young children are thought to be more impressionable.
    • Maybe it's an Australian term. It just sounds like wording out of a government pamphlet.

YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first heading "Meeting and correspondence" really does not convey anything meaningful to the reader. Could it be called "Alleged bribe" or "Alleged illegal behavior" or "Bribing" or something that related to the section content more directly?
    • Actually, I was quite a way through the article before it became clear that they actually had been bribed. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added "with illegal bookmaker" to the title. Well they weren't bribed unless you mean it was just an unauthorised/prohibited employment? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was a casino in a dimly lit street in close proximity, which Waugh and Warne." - This is not a complete sentence.
  • "Team manger Colin Egar had advised Warne that he had been given negative reports about the casino, but he was vague and at the time, casinos were not perceived as troublespots for unwary cricketers." - "negative reports" is rather weaselly and vague - the casino was crooked? It had prostitutes who would lure unwary cricketers? What was so unsavory about those casinos in particular?
  • The book was vague and said Egar said something on the lines of implying that dodgy things happen there. I don't think we should speculate more, but it would likely mean underworld figures and handing over of money in shady ways etc. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "insider team information such as tactics and selections" - selections of team members, bats, pitch (whatever that is) or what?
  • They didn't say "he asked me who was going to bowl first" "he asked me if I was going to try XYZ tactic" so I just made some generic examples of what tactical considerations are used in cricket. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Waugh accepted the money, but he refused to divulge inside team information.[4] The arrangement was in place until the end of the 1994/95 Australian summer." - so the bookie kept giving them money, even though he was receiving no information?
  • (Mattinbgn) The information was supposedly "pitch and weather". As for why the bookie paid for this see my comment above for my speculation.
  • Clarified that he would not divulge inside team information like tactics and selection policy but agreed to comment on the pitch conditions. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it would be great if you could give an example of a "team tactic". Give us poor readers a flavor of what's going on! What sort of secrets do cricket players guard? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In later years, Waugh said that at the time he did not see anything wrong with what he had done, reasoning that the agreement was similar to a player talking about their form and playing conditions in a pre-match media interview." - Well, if he gave no information, then what was wrong with the "agreement"?
  • (Mattinbgn) Again see my speculation above
  • Well the pitch and weather information. I think it's considered dubious to have undeclared dealings with unregistered bookmakers. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leg spinner" - what are these?
  • I think there are too many unexplained cricket terms that the general reader would not be able to make sense of. - I have wikilinked many, hopefully correctly
  • "but accepted the offer at the insistence of "John" who said that he would be offended if Warne declined" - these cricketers were so naive that they did not know about quid pro quo? Something about this does not make sense.
  • Indeed, you are right, it doesn't make sense but nonetheless that is their claim and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am not sure we can dispute it. Their claims to naivety were widely mocked, especially by commentators from India, Pakistan etc.. Perhaps something from them can be included here to make that point. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've further noted that this is what they said, of course a lot of people didn't believe their claimed naivety. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two players did not tell their teammates or team management about the deal, feeling that it would frowned on" - frowned on? - is this an understatement, or was bribery merely something people frowned upon?
  • It was about their surrepticiously taking money from illegal gamblers for information instead of deliberately playing badly to lose. Obviously if the latter happened their team would have kicked them out. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Waugh continued to deliver pitch and weather conditions" - so he did divulge information after all!
  • (Mattinbgn) Yes, but he claimed only on playing conditions, such as the pitch and weather
  • Yes, I clarified the first statement about the deal earlier up to say that he agreed to talk about pitch and weather but not about team policies and tactics. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "absolutely pizzled" - pizzled? - Is that an Australian expression?
Added clarification. It can mean "pissed" in the sense of being angry. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To deliver such bland explanations to the would media as they did yesterday and then not accept explanations... - the use of "explanations" twice - is this correct?
  • "Malik, whom Warne and Waugh had accused of attempting to bribe them, said that he was delighted." - I don't understand this. I must be missing something
  • (Mattinbgn) As stated earlier in the article "They remained silent even after they reported Pakistan captain Salim Malik for attempting to bribe them during the subsequent tour of Pakistan". Malik felt vindicated and delighted that his accusers were in fact accused of similar malfeasance.
  • Clarified. Malik was happy that his accusers were shown to have engaged in dubiouc activities and appeared less credible. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't finished the last section yet "Later inquiries" However, do you think the article could be shortened and have more "punch"? I became bogged down in all the names and details. I think the article would benefit from being condensed. Also, it is hard to believe that so recently, cricketers were not clear that bribry in stports is illegal.
  • (Mattinbgn) Until then it had never really been a big issue in cricket (at least in the last 100 years). There had been rumblings etc. but unlike baseball let's say, there had been no general rule prohibiting contact or even betting. Indeed Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh bet on their own team to lose in 1981 and escaped sanction, even when their team then lost from an almost unloseable position. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they knew that match-fixing was not allowed, but they obviously did not or pretended to think that doing undeclared interviews for illegal gamblers for punditry was no different from getting publicly paid for writing a newspaper column about punditry. Well I think the cover-up and the legal to and fro and blame game is part of the interest. Is there anything particularly boring about it? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I have a fairly high tolerance for reading articles on subjects that I know nothing about. But here there is a very complicated set of events, many names of unknown people (to me), unexplained cricket terms, and after reading and reading, it turns out that Australian cricket players are naive individuals who "overlook" unpleasantness so that this seemingly minor event is a big deal. I though Australians were a roudy bunch, more like Americans that proper Brits. But I guess I am totally wrong, a victim of my own stereotyping. Sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually these cricketers were very rowdy, but if you want anything more specific to be done, I will do so. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I have been through the article and made some changes which I hope have not changed the meaning. I was not clear about some of the wording, so I took a stab at the meaning and hope you will correct if I am wrong. I assume that cricket scores are reported the way you have them in this article, that is, with a / rather than ndash. Also, "John" can be in quotes the first time, and maybe one more selected time, but I don't see the justification for using the quotes so many times. It is never explained who he is, so I think he is John, for the purposes of this article.

I am ready to pass the article as GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Reasonably well written b (MoS): follows MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No original research
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Explains the context b (focused): Remains focued on subject
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Now I understand what happened and see the situation implicitly behind the incident (controversy). Its actually interesting without knowing anything about cricket. Good job! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_the_bookmaker_controversy/GA1&oldid=1090428997"