Talk:Cameron White/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC) This is a very good article, and should pass quite easily. Just a few points to clear up. It may take me a day or two to finish the review, but I don't see any big problems. Reading the whole article, the only minor issues are over making a few parts clearer or making sure the non-cricketer understands it.


 * As a biography, this needs PERSONDATA
 * Done: Added.


 * Images all fine, with alttext. Not too sure why Symonds picture is there, though!
 * Because I got bored and wanted more images?? No, it was due to the comparisons drawn, which was something I was going to expand further upon. May do so if I take the article onto FA, but for the moment I think it is fine without it.  If you feel the image is out of place, I can remove it.
 * A little, but not to the point where it's worth taking out, especially if you are going to expand it.

Lead
 * "Early comparisons with Victoria team-mate Shane Warne disappeared as White took on a role closer to that of Andrew Symonds, a batsman who could bowl a bit." "Disappeared" and "could bowl a bit": may be better to use "faded" and "bowled occasionally".
 * Done: Changed as suggested.


 * "...followed the following year": repetition of follow
 * Done: Changed to "...followed the next season".


 * "selector's minds": apostrophe should be after s unless there is only one selector (sorry, apostrophe tyrant!)
 * Done: Changed as suggested.


 * "solidified his place": phrase is a little odd. Cemented is better but cliched. Secured? Confirmed?
 * Done: Changed to "...secured a regular place".

Early career
 * Youth structure may be better than set-up, but I'm not that bothered.
 * Done: Agree, and changed as suggested.


 * Is U/19 the standard way to write Under 19? It looks strange, but fair enough if that's the standard way.
 * Done: Unified usage throughout paragraph to Under-19.


 * Batting and bowling averages may help here for the 2002 world cup and for the 2002-03 season.
 * Possibly, I'll have a look at them and get back to you. I'm trying to avoid using averages too much as they can be confusing and unintuitive to non-cricket fans.
 * This one's not that important if you want to avoid stats.

Youngest ever captain
 * Would it be any use to explain why White took over from Berry and Warne?
 * Possibly, but I don't know them. Short of the reason I go onto explain (looking to the future, his performance captaining AUS U19 etc) I have little idea. I can speculate that Warne was overlooked due to his international commitments.
 * OK as it is, then.


 * Who was the previous youngest captain? (This may be too much detail, so again I'm not too bothered here)
 * Not sure it's overly relevant here, although I'll maybe look it up; if there is a big age difference it may be interesting.


 * "Strong start to the season with both bat and ball": maybe some facts to back this up such as scores or averages.
 * Done: Removed this and rephrased the start of that paragraph. Harrias (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "His average suffered from the previous season" is a little vague. Either give the numbers or describe how it got higher. Also should it be "compared to the previous season" rather than "from the previous season"?
 * Done: Rephrased this section and included a little more detail. Harrias (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would not call 58 and 75 cameo innings!
 * I agree to a point. However, for a first-class game, he scored pretty quickly, and it is one of the first examples of this in his game.  I will have a look at trying to rephrase it.
 * To me, cameo suggests 20 or 30 rather than a fifty, but could just be me!


 * "With a view to the future" does this need quotation marks?
 * It's a direct quote from Cricket Australia, so in my opinion yes, but given the phrase I guess it could be taken out of them. I don't feel strongly either way to be honest.
 * I only mention it as I got pulled up for this in a peer review; doesn't bother me, but may be an issue if you take it to FA.


 * I don't think White's quote on his appointment adds much.
 * Hmmm. Possibly not. I'll think about this.
 * Again, I've no real problem, but FA might as they are quite fussy at times!


 * How was the partnership record breaking?
 * Done: Clarified the record. Harrias (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

International breakthrough
 * "his first-class averages remained steady from the previous season": again, maybe give numbers or describe that they were roughly the same, as "steady" is vague.
 * Done: changed as suggested.


 * "reasonable but not outstanding performances": Is this someone's opinion? Could be better to illustrate with some numbers. Although in all these cases, I can see why you would want to avoid too many scores and statistics, so there may be another way to make it more precise.
 * Done: put some numbers in, although I'm not sure how much they reveal! Harrias (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * *coughs* probably just my opinion. I'll look at rewording this bit too!


 * "Big hitting all-rounder" is a bit too much cricket-speak and the general reader won't know what this is.
 * Good point, I can't think of an alternative at the moment, I'll consider it. Although if all-rounder is linked; I'd say 'big hitting' is pretty self-explanatory?
 * Possibly, we probably need a non-cricketer to check! My only other idea was "fast scoring" or "hard hitting" but not really convinced by those either.


 * Is it worth adding a sentence explaining supersub, even though it's linked?
 * "Australia declared on 293/5" There would not be a declaration in an ODI.
 * Done: Wow! I must have been tired, stupid, or both when I wrote that! Changed to "but as Australia closed their innings on 293/5", hopefully it isn't too 'cricket speak'.
 * Sounds OK to me.


 * golden duck: the general reader won't know. Can it be linked?
 * Done: Linked

I'll carry this on in the next day or so and hopefully finish it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments so far, I knew there would be lots of little issues with the article, it seems I was right! Have to get ready for work now, so will address some more of your points later. Harrias (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

International contract not renewed
 * "After being forced to follow-on by Gloucestershire, White came in at number five...": Sounds a bit like White had to follow on; maybe change to "After Somerset were forced to follow-on..."?
 * Done: changed as suggested.


 * Describing 172 as a cameo is a bit harsh! Again, to me, cameo says brief but interesting, not just quick. You wouldn't describe a Sehwag 200 as a cameo!
 * Done: Removed 'cameo'. What can I say, I like the word!  I get what you mean now, and will consider the above use of it too.


 * Use of * to show not out maybe needs explaining for the first one. I've seen the * wikilinked to not out before for this reason. I think a quick explanation is better, personally.
 * Done: Added a note to explain the usage.


 * "show off his skills": would "display his skills" be more formal?
 * Done: changed as suggested.


 * "highest in the format" and "world record total": While a cricket fan would know that "format" refered to 20-20, maybe it should say highest in 20-20 and world record in 20-20 for the non-fan.
 * Done: changed as suggested.


 * "new record fourth innings score": Maybe specify in first-class cricket and explain how it is a record. Also, as this is quite impressive, should more be made of it?
 * I know you're going to say that it's for the non-cricket fans. But... What other form is a fourth-innings record going to be in?  As with before, it might be something to expand before going for FA.  I have clarified the record though.

One Day International cricket 2006–07
 * "Strong start": Maybe explain how it was strong.
 * "A strong start to the 2006–07 Australian domestic season, highlighted by 150*": highlighted does not sound right to me. Maybe change to "culminated in" or "exemplified by" or similar and it may cover the strong start point too.
 * Done: changed to "exemplified by", which I feel covers your first point too.


 * I'm not sure about the quotes again, as I don't feel they add much. As I said above, though, it's only as I've been picked up for this. If you like them, leave them in as it certainly won't affect this review.
 * I think they add to the article. If I do take the article to FA in the future, then I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.  If you're happy for them to stay for GA, then for the moment, I'll keep them in.


 * "These short-comings": Apart from his bowling, what were the other shortcomings? This part is also a bit confused as it talks about his bowling, then how Hogg and Watson were picked and then mentions "these short-comings". Maybe merge the part about him being dropped and left out of the tour. "Despite his excellent form with the bat, White's bowling was proving to be mostly ineffective. For this reason, as well as the improved form of Brad Hodge and the selection of Brad Hogg and Shane Watson for their ability with the ball, he was dropped for the finals of the Commonwealth Bank Series and left out of the World Cup squad." But this might be a bit wordy.
 * Done: No, that's good for me. Changed as suggested.

Another domestic year
 * Do the Victoria matches that you mention need refs? I tend to err on the side of caution and put them in, but I may be too fussy.
 * Done: added a ref for the first match, not for the pair.


 * "...a modicum of runs": Seems a bit too woolly. Does it mean quite a few, a small number or not many at all?
 * Done: have changed to 96 runs, although maybe 'modest number of runs'? Or is that still too woolly?


 * "he again showed his ability to dominate the crease": This makes me think of his strutting around in his crease! Would it be better to say dominate the bowlers or maybe dominate the scoring. It depends if you want to emphasise the failure of everyone else or his speed.
 * Done: changed to "ability to remain calm and keep scoring even.."


 * "when they had 'won' the competition's wooden spoon": I don't think won is the right word. And maybe explain wooden spoon, even though it's linked; maybe "they had finished in last place, achieving the "wooden spoon"."
 * Done: changed slightly, although still kept 'winning' in there. I think putting it in quotation marks shows it isn't meant in terms of a victory win.  If you feel strongly, I'll alter it.


 * rejuvenation does not seem the right word. Improvement? Increase in the effectiveness of?
 * Done: changed to improvement


 * "The auction for the inaugural competing of...": I think "inaugural competition" or "inaugural season" may be better.
 * Done: changed to "inaugural season"


 * "For the thirteen Australians on offer, this was in sharp contrast to the secrecy which surrounded the value of national contracts." Is this necessary for this article? If so, I think it needs a citation or it seems a bit too much like an opinion.
 * The ref at the end of the next sentence (Show me the money (but not to Matt or Ricky)) covers both sentences, I didn't want to cite the same ref two sentences running. I agree to a large extent with you though, and would be more than willing to remove that sentence, the paragraph still scans fine without it.

One-day specialist
 * "out-played comprehensively": As above, not sure it needs quotation marks rather than just paraphrasing. I think it would need a longer quote to make it worthwhile.
 * Done: changed as suggested

Knowing his role
 * From reading this, I assume he doesn't bowl now. Perhaps this could be pointed out, for example mention how many (if any) overs he bowled in this period.
 * As I say in the first paragraph, his role in the team is as a batsman. He hasn't bowled internationally since August 2009 against Scotland.  I'm not sure if it needs referring to further, but if you want I'll look at it in the morning.  Now, however, bed beckons!

International centuries and half centuries
 * I'm not a fan of these and there was a discussion here. However, it came to no firm conclusions, and I certainly would not stop this article passing because of it if you like this feature. I've no idea how FA people would see it though.
 * It was there in a messy form when I started. I've cleaned it up and left it in for the time being.  Personally I would prefer it remain but just with centuries, but for the moment I've been non-controversial and left it there.

General
 * The lead mentions comparisons to Shane Warne. This is not mentioned in the article and it could be pointed out. I'm sure there's an early article somewhere. I remember he was going to be the next Warne when he started! Also, it may be possible to say when it was realised this was not going to happen.
 * To be honest, when working on the article I only really used CA and CI in any depth. As I alluded to earlier, comparisons and style are something I want to do some work on.  This would cover both Warne and Symonds as well as his general style etc.  Feel free to tell me that I can't just wait for FA and you want it down now though!


 * Article links to 3 different disambiguation pages: 2009 Champions Trophy, Champions Trophy, Hyderabad
 * Done


 * All external links fine.
 * Refs seem appropriate.

These next two would improve the article in my opinion, but if they are not possible or you don't consider them necessary at the moment, they certainly will not affect whether the article passes or not.
 * There seems to be nothing on his personal life. Is there anything that could be added? I feel it needs one or two things at least.
 * I've come across little of encyclopedic relevance, hopefully a trawl through some Australian journalism will help with this.


 * Similarly, nothing on his style or technique. Is there any way to talk about this or discuss opinions on him as a cricketer?
 * As I said above with the comment about Warne, it's definitely something I want to work on.

Once these fixes are made, I'll pass this. Sorry if I'm being nit-picky! There are no major issues: it's a very good article. I'll probably have one more read through so I won't put it on hold till then, and you might have addressed everything by then anyway. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, and I have no problem at all with nit-picking. Anything that can improve the article is fine by me.  I've argued some of your points, but I'm more than happy to say that some of those are stubbornness and others are laziness, so I'll have no problem with you putting your foot down about them!  As I said above though, that can wait until the morning for me (or longer, depending on when you get back to this), for now I'm going to sleep. Harrias (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The changes now seem OK. I'm fine with the quotes myself, so that's OK. The extra bits about his personal life, style and technique can wait but I'd make sure they were in before FA. The only parts I think we still need are
 * The comparison to Warne, as it's interesting and is mentioned in the lead.
 * Done: added mention at the start of International recognition


 * The bowling in recent times. A brief comment is fine, but as his bowling was such a big thing early in his career, and he was picked as a Test match bowler (!!!), it is worth mentioning that he doesn't do it any more.
 * Done: added mention at the end of the second paragraph in Knowing his role

I'll pass once there's something for these, however brief! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded to both comments. Harrias (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All fine now, I'll pass it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)