Talk:Arthur Mold

Self Restraint?
Please, all you happy cricket nuts, can you please hold yourselves to just one featured article a year about cricketers? Especially dead white male cricketers.

The world is such a big place. Same goes for Dreadnought Battleships, coins struck by the US Mint, and Video Games.

Slip them in to the did you know etc., but featured articles should be one a year max...

"Did You Know the dead white male cricketers appear on Wikipedia's Feature Article page more than any other topic than Dreadnought Battleships?"

Thanks! 72.141.106.240 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

How about no, cockhead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.23.233 (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above and ... esoteric without elaboration of what is "unfair" about Mold's throwing
This article is dominated by the "suspicions" that "condemned" Mold's "dubious" and "unfair" technique which "erupted" controversy.

For anyone unfamiliar with cricket this is frustratingly incomprehensible without a visit to the articles bowling action, delivery, and throwing. I suggest this be better summarized early in the present article. Something like: "only the rotation of the shoulder may be used to impart velocity to the ball. If the elbow is straightened more than 15 degrees it is considered 'throwing', one of the most serious and controversial charges that can be made." --Cornellier (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)