Wikipedia:Peer review/Wally Hammond/archive1

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FAC eventually. I am conscious of the length and also that the prose may drag in places where matches or series of matches are being described. Images may be a problem due to copyright, advice would be welcome. Any comments appreciated.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Great work and very comprehensive. Some quick comments. Some of the sentences seem to run together a bit, with commas joining phrases that may be expressed better in separate sentences. Some examples:
  • "Finishing fifth in the national averages, he was chosen to play in two Test trial matches, he was also selected in the M.C.C. team to tour South Africa that winter."
  • "In 1932, Hammond was appointed vice-captain of Gloucestershire, but it was noted in Wisden that he sometimes failed to inspire his team, while Hammond himself felt unable to take the same risks that Lyon had done because he was a new captain."
  • "During the season, Hammond was elected to life membership of Gloucestershire and elected to membership of the M.C.C., while also captaining the Gentlemen against the Players at Lord's, having previously captained the Players and becoming the only player ever to captain both teams.". These are only examples and there are many other similar sentences in the article. Try looking at User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises for some guidance. Will provide more feedback later. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Beginning to overhaul some of the clumsier sentences but it may take a while. Will probably miss some, too, as it's all still too recent to spot anything that isn't glaring!--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's easier to get teh content down pat, add whatever more you want and/or forking others to subarticles, and then copyediting. CEing and then changing content and doing it again can be annoying. Nothing wrong with having subarticles for the guy, Bradman, Miller and Ponting all have a few YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've sorted the worst examples. It needs another pair of eyes to check!--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Someone, or some group, has researched Hammond's career very thoroughly and is to be commended; there is the basis for a high quality article here. However, it first needs a thorough copyedit, with a view to reducing the overall length considerably. An encyclopedia article should be in summary style; while important details of Hammond's life should not be omitted, information such as that relating to his school life could be cut substantially, and in the career sections the essential details are often buried by too many examples. The quality of the prose, good in parts, suffers numerous lapses, probably indicating the presence of several editorial hands.

I've made some cuts. Is it still too long? He had a long, eventful career which is why the article is so long. If any more cuts are needed, I'd appreciate advice on which bits need shortening the most. I doubt that it's all as important as I think it is!--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some detailed comments relating to the lead:-

• Image: we need to know the source of this photograph and details of its publication. Why is it PD in the United States? Also it needs alt text.
  • I'm not good with images, so if anyone can help, much appreciated!--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the infobox one, it's expired copyright in Australia. Snapped in the 1937/38 Ashes I think. SGGH ^ping! 08:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think you "take over" the Test captaincy of a country, I think you are appointed. An appropriate link should be used for "Test".
  • Done. Test cricket linked in previous sentence. Is it needed again?--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no need to repeat links so quickly. SGGH ^ping! 08:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• "He was considered the best English batsman of the 1930s and at the time of his death was considered to be one of the best four batsmen in the history of cricket." There is an awkward repetition of "was considered", and also it sounds as though he was playing up to the time of his death. And who "considered him" – cricket historians, commentators, other players etc?
  • Done. Took out "at the time of his death" and clarified who considered him in the top 4. Does it need saying that this was the opinion of him when he died, as it is less likely he would make the top 4 now?--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• The repetition just referred to is made worse by the next sentence, which begins: "Many considered him..." Apart from the wording, an indication should be given as to who these "many" are.
  • Done.
• "...he could have achieved a high standard." Hmm, 83 Test wickets sounds pretty good, perhaps "higher" rther than "high"?
• "He was captain in 20 matches..." → "He captained England in 20 matches..."
• "He was the leading run scorer in Test matches from 1937 until 1970..." This is confusing, as it makes it seem that he was active during those years. The main point here is that his career aggregate of 7,249 runs was the highest in all Tests matches, until passed by Cowdrey in 1970. 1937 is pretty irrelevant. I would simplify this entry to something like: "His career aggregate of 7,249 runs was the highest in all Test cricket until surpassed by Colin Cowdrey in 1970".
• "His 22 Test centuries remains the joint English record." A bit inspecific, and also likely one day soon to be out of date. Suggest: "As of January 2010 his total of 22 Test centuries remains an English record, held jointly with Cowdrey."
• "In 1933, he set a record for the highest Test innings of 336 not out which lasted until 1938." I don't like "which lasted until 1938", since this isn't a lengthy period of time. You should say "highest individual Teat innings, and link "not out" for the benefit of non-cricketers.
• "He also took 83 wickets" Clarify that these were Test wickets
• Again you need to clarify that his career totals of runs and centuries were respectively the seventh and third highest as of January 2010.
• "Although Hammond began his career in 1920, he was forced to wait until 1923 to begin playing full time due to his qualification to play for Gloucestershire being challenged." Clumsy wording; suggest: "Although Hammond began his career in 1920, he was required to wait until 1923 before he could play full time, after his qualification to play for Gloucestershire was challenged."
• "...he was chosen to visit the West Indies in 1925–26 - clarify that he was chosen as a member of an MCC touring party.
• "When he recovered in 1927, he began to score heavily. Chosen for England, he scored 905 runs in a series against Australia which was then a record." A bit imprecise - for example, the nature of the record is not properly specified. Suggest "After his recovery in 1927 he began to score heavily, and was selected for England. In the 1928–29 series against Australia he scored 905 runs, then a record aggregate for a single Test series."
• "into the 1930s" or "in the 1930s"?
• "...he was made captain of England in 1938 when he became an amateur." Forget "when he became an amateur", that can be explained in the text.
• "Outside of cricket, Hammond was married twice, divorcing his wife in acrimonious circumstances," Delete the "of", and clarify that this was his first wife.
• The word "difficult" is repeated in the next sentence
  • Done. All these points altered. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• "He was also described as a heavy drinker by people who knew him." Too vague; indicate who these people were.
  • Took this out, it's not mentioned in article and not a big point.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Why does the lead tail off with the car crash? It should end with a brief resume of the last years of Hammond's life.
  • Done. Not much to say about the end, though.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not been able to go through the main article in any detail, but here are just a couple of points:-

• "While on tour in South Africa in 1927–28, Hammond was "not at the moment the dominating personality as a batsman expected" Can you check the wording of this quote? It's not grammatical as it stands - what was the complete sentence?
  • Mistake in quoting! Quote included extra words from a previous edit.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• In the "Loss of form" section, referring to the 1935 season it says that Hammond had only scored around 500 runs by the end of July. Later it says that his season's total was 2,616 runs. So he scored around 2,100 runs in just over a month (seasons ended early in September then)? Unlikely, please check the figures.
  • This was what Hammond wrote, but as you point out, it is just plain wrong. Took out the runs part and left in his opinion of the season.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have as much time as I would wish to devote to this article, but I will be happy to look at it again after an effort has been made to address the main concerns I have expressed. Please contact my talkpage as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far, very helpful.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments. The conventional figures given in Wisden, Frindall etc for the catches in the 1928 season is 78. The same appears in 2009 edition too. You need to check where the difference with CA comes from. Nothing is mentioned here. Tintin 02:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Before seeing your comment, I'd noticed the discrepancy and have added a note mentioning that Wisden has 78. JH (talk page) 09:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The text was changed a while ago by User:RossRSmith with the edit summary claiming that Hammond caught Evans off Mills against Worcestershire on 2-4 May. Not sure where this info comes from so I've asked him.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've responded with answer days ago...RossRSmith (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done as RossRSmith suggested to find out what the discrepancy is. However, he has not said how he knew which the "disputed" catch was, nor how reliable the CA information is.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was also wondering whether you could add a mention of Herbert Fishwick's famous photo of Hammond's cover-drive somewhere. Tintin 15:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)