Talk:1947 English cricket season/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes (talk · contribs) 15:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The immediate concern here is who can help if I have any issues or questions!? The nominator was recently banned from the site. He had introduced some controversial images to this but otherwise did little with the article, anyway. The key contributor was User:BillDRyan who has been inactive since 2014. I'll do a review but unless there is someone in the cricket project who can answer any questions arising, this could be heading for certain fail. Should be able to study it in next two or three days. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Boca Jóvenes, if the intro is any guide this will require someone who can do a great deal of work on the article. Per WP:LEAD, an article of this length should have a lead section of three or four paragraphs (four is the max) that touch on all sections of the article. This article has only one lead paragraph, so there are a few new paragraphs that will need creating. The WP:GANI says that people who are not significant contributors should consult with them prior to nominating the article at GAN, so the nomination itself is questionable (and more so given it was a sock who has been banned). Another issue is that the "England team in 1947" section has only one citation in five paragraphs, which is clearly inadequate, and there are other uncited paragraphs elsewhere. Best of luck with this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be able to help with this one but in my view it's a long way off, the sourcing is weak and there are a lot of uncited paragraphs. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset and Sarastro1, thank you both very much for your advice and help. I'll try to do it justice but it's definitely going to be a fail, so many issues arising. I'm here for footy and history mainly but I have a friend who owns post-war Wisdens so I thought: "Hey, I can review this one with Wisden". Never expected the proverbial can of worms to open!! It looks to me like Bill DRyan was "getting there" when he left the site but the banned user just went ahead and nominated it without giving any thought to finishing the job, apart from adding some questionable images. Leave it with me to have a go at a full review report because it will be good practice for me to deal with a failed nomination. Thank you again, both. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Report on GA criteria
Having reviewed the whole article now, it fails GA. The findings are as follows and there is a list of improvements needed at the end of this section. Please note that the main reasons are the unsuitable introduction and the massive number of sentences, quotations and paragraohs without references. I also have doubts about undue weighting, as explained below, in the use of different sources.

Well written:
 * the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Narrative is very well written but the intro falls well short of the WP:LEAD standard and that is a major reason for GA failure.

Verifiable with no original research:
 * it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * it contains no original research; and
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

Many more citations needed throughout and far too many to justify placing the review on hold.

Broad in its coverage:
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

'''Certainly meets "broad in coverage". There is substantial detail but it does retain good focus. The article is strong in this criterion and is a mine of information about the subject.'''

Neutral:
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

No bias observed.

Stable:
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

It is stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

'''Illustration was a serious issue. All images were removed to review it without nominator inputs.'''

Improvements needed
Lets start at the very beginning, a very good place to start. The introduction is too brief and must be expanded so that it provides a summary of the whole article.

Topics to be mentioned in the introduction: the background to the season (weather and post-war austerity), main honours, England in 1947, the South African tour, a summary of the Test series, a summary of the County Championship and (a shorter one) of the Minor Counties Championship, the tied matches, other notable fixtures (the University Match, Gentlemen v Players and North v South), the Wisden Cricketers of the Year and some of the more notable achievements (especially Compton and Edrich). Yes, some of these are already there but some is not enough.

There are a large number of citations needed which I'm flagging individually. Quotations must be directly referenced, even if the reference given at the end of the paragraph includes the quotation.

One curiosity I have is the team called "The Rest". Who were they, whom did they represent (e.g., MCC) and can there be a link to anything about them in Wikipedia?

Why is Playfair the favoured sourcee when surely Wisden carries most weight and credibility?

Why is CricketArchive the favoured online source ahead of ESPNcricinfo?

Citation of online sources is not done according to site standard (i.e., "cite web |url= |title=").

The above must be addressed if the article is ever to have any chance of becoming a GA. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with almost all of the above. However CricketArchive as a reference site carries comparable weight to ESPNcricinfo, and I for one have found it the more reliable and comprehensive of the two. JH (talk page) 07:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)