Talk:Adelaide leak/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mkativerata (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Just starting the review now. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

All looks good - only little comments. I should note that I haven't checked sources, I don't have ready access to any of them. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the first couple of sections are below, the rest will follow:

Lead

 * I wonder if "Test" might not be best wikilinked to Test cricket, thus removing the need to wikilink it (or even mention "Test") in the following sentence. Ordinarily I wouldn't think it necessary but the first sentence doesn't mention cricket at all so the wikilink might help contextualise the article.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Background
I wonder whether there could be opportunities to pare down this section a bit. At this stage, one has to go more than halfway through the article's prose before hitting the subject matter, being the leak. On the other hand, I do recognise the importance of setting out the involvement of all the key actors (Wooffull, Bradman, Fingleton, Warner, Jardine, etc).
 * Hmmm... I may be able to trim some, but I do think that a substantial background is needed or the leak doesn't make any sense except "Oh, really? So what?" I think context is needed to show how big a deal it was. However, let me know if you consider anything superfluous. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that might be the case. It could probably only be done by losing a sentence or half-sentence here and there so might not make much difference. I'll leave it to you.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "cricket ball" - is there any need for "cricket"?
 * "Jardine's appointment" - it might be good to clarify what the appointment was, the only mention of Jardine previously being that he "led" the English team, from which it isn't explicitly clear that he was the captain.
 * "Yorkshire bowler Bill Bowes who had also tried similar tactics at the end of the season, and in one match had bowled short at Jack Hobbs." This sentence seems to be missing something.
 * "...was highly critical of Bowes and the other Yorkshire bowlers." - what was the basis of the criticism?
 * ...and he may have met senior batsmen Wally Hammond and Herbert Sutcliffe." - what's the purpose of this, surely he met his own batsmen on a long see voyage? If it was to discuss Bodyline tactics like they were being discussed with Larwood, it could be made clearer.
 * "Meanwhile, Woodfull, was being encouraged" - I don't think the second comma is warranted.
 * All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Warner–Woodfull incident

 * "Although the comment was aimed at unnerving Bradman" - wouldn't Bradman have been sitting in the dressing room at the time?
 * He was batting, which wasn't clear. Changed now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "According to the original newspaper reports and Fingleton's later account, Woodfull was lying on the masseur's table, awaiting treatment from a doctor, although this may have been an exaggeration to increase the drama of the account, and Leo O'Brien described Woodfull as wearing a towel around his waist, having showered." Breaking this sentence in two might help readibility, but up to you.
 * Agree, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Leak

 * This section is great - very interesting reading with clear prose.
 * I think Wisden ought to be wikilinked.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Images

 * All public domain.

Comprehensiveness

 * Fully covers the incident and provides sufficient contextul background and commentary on the aftermath.

Factually accurate and verifiable

 * I don't have access to any of the offline sources, but all parts of the article are sourced to apparently reliable sources. I've checked the couple of accessible references and they both fully support the content of the article from which the sources are cited.

Stable

 * Thankfully Bradman and Fingleton's families haven't edit-warred over the article.

Minor issues

 * Is there any reason the article title is "Adelaide leak" but the first sentence treats it as a proper noun?
 * A couple of the captions have full stops/periods but they aren't complete sentences (not a GA issue though).
 * The lead could probably be split into two paragraphs. I'd suggest "Many people at the time" but I'll leave it up to you whether to split it (it's not a GA issue).
 * All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * All done now hopefully, and thanks for the review. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Passed, thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)