Talk:Archie MacLaren/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Right - I will copyedit as I go and drop queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  In the match against Harrow at Lord's, MacLaren once more succeeded when others struggled, and he scored 76 on a wet, difficult pitch - against...who?
 * Oops, that's just embarrassing. Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  His runs helped Lancashire to win the County Championship - to me it sounds more natural without the "to" --> " His runs helped Lancashire win the County Championship"
 * To me that sounds a little US-Englishy, and "to" sounds more natural. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ok - I have no problem with that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  The incident was calmed by the ground authorities,.. - you calm people not an incident...can you think of a reword..? yes, good.
 * Switched to defused. Better? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  although Lancashire were eager for him to play, he had little impact, although he played for the Gentlemen against the Players at the Oval and shared a partnership of 141 with C. B. Fry. - two "although"s in the one sentence - also sentence could do with a rejigging
 * Reworked this a little, as it was pretty horrendous. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  which starred C. Aubrey Smith, a former cricketer and friends of his - "friends" is plural. Is a person missing or should this be singular...
 * Singular. Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Overall looking like qualifying for GA status - the info is all there. The prose is ok, but there are some short sentences which could be tweaked and lengthened I think. I didn't see any ohther gross deal-breakers but sense that some massaging of prose would be helpful..I'll take another look later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I suspect this may be a little rough and ready at the moment, so please point anything which you consider borderline: I know this needs work. The eventual aim is FAC, but it needs a lot doing first. I haven't done a full copy-edit and polish as it is overlong at the moment, and there are a few more sources which need inclusion. So feel free to pick gaping holes in it: it's all helpful. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's tricky when you can take a step back and look at the prose and see it needs massaging, yet close up find it hard to find glaring clangers. Anyway, what I think is a good game plan is that I will read it again, see what I can pick up and check against GA criteria - then I'd recommend a quick peer review mainly focussing on prose, as having a few sets of eyes run over it will help alot I think. Then it should be on target for FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'll be making a few more changes and general massages before taking it further whatever happens. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In the lead -  In all three series, MacLaren was involved in incidents and controversies which contributed to the defeats, and he was replaced as captain in 1905, although he remained in the team comes straight after a sentence mentioning "three series" - any wording which distances repeated words from the previous sentence is good. I thought of, " MacLaren was involved in incidents and controversies which contributed to the all three series defeats, and he was replaced as captain in 1905, although he remained in the team"
 * Tweaked this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - I've looked over bits and pieces, but I think the most value will be a new set of eyes at this point. Nice read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)