Talk:Curtly Ambrose/GA1

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

Reviewer: Old Lanky (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

General comments
The article is ten years old and must be one of the earliest cricket articles on the site. But, until adopted by User:Sarastro1 last month, it was undeveloped and, in terms of quality, no more than a weak start. I have no problem with the sources used (Wisden being impeccable) and can see no expression of non-neutral viewpoints. There are no unresolved issues, no evidence of disputes and nothing to suggest any copyrighting violations.

I have commented on links in each section below but they are all about either redirects or missing links: I can see no "deadlinks" and no disambiguation links. I think citations have been used effectively throughout and I certainly would not apply any citation tags here.

One comment I must make is that much of the text consists of statistical information and in places it seems overdone though cricket is unfortunately a statistical sport in many respects and often the statistics are the simplest way of emphasising the level of performance.

Lead

 * does not properly summarise the article and needs to be written chronologically from birth, picking out examples of his key successes or failures, with the style and technique summary in an end paragraph. At present, the emphasis is on style and technique to the exclusion of development and achievement.
 * I've though about this quite a bit and added a some more, but the danger here is that there is no "over-arching" source which I can use to say that X and Y were his best/most notable achievements. Other than selecting the two I have done, there is a risk of cherry-picking and using my own views on what was good or should be included. This would be WP:SYNTHESIS and I would rather not risk this. The down-side is that the lead is a little short of incident, but rather than go through his whole career (which would not be good at all), I think this pared-down version is better, although not ideal. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "great height" and "great accuracy" in same sentence: reword whole of this sentence which has an awkward construction, perhaps splitting it into two sentences
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "notoriously reluctant" ==> "reportedly reluctant"
 * I think "notoriously" works better, and is accurate. There is no doubt, and "reportedly" comes across a little wishy-washy. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Links to Pakistan, Antigua and Barbuda and batting average all go to redirects
 * This is not actually a problem; it is quite acceptable, it is dablinks which should be avoided. Fixed the first anyway, although I cannot do "Pakistan" or "batting average" as they are part of the template. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Should the source have a pipeline to present a text description rather than [1]?
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Date of source is 2007 so have the stats been checked recently, preferably using CricketArchive rather than CricInfo?
 * Why? For such recent data, one is no more reliable than the other. Updated the source date, and it checks out. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Early life and career

 * "but his mother was a fan, and Ambrose played in his youth" – remove comma
 * Why? Nothing really wrong with it. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "progressed to the St John's cricket team" – link is to the town: is St John's the name of the club?
 * No idea; source just says St John's cricket team. I think a link to the town is better than no link or a red-link. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "he took seven wickets for 67 runs for Antigua against St Kitts – links needed to the Antigua and St Kitts teams
 * Linked Antigua, no article for St Kitts team. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Liverpool league" – is this the Liverpool and District Cricket Competition (LDCC)?
 * Possibly, but source does not specify. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "in the absence of leading bowlers Winston Benjamin and Eldine Baptiste with the West Indies team" – suggest "who were with".
 * I would argue that "who were with" would be redundant, but would add it if it was a big issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Debut and first years

 * "on 12 March 1988 in Kingston, Jamaica" – link is to the city: should name and link to the venue
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * links needed to Pakistan, West Indies, Australia and India Test teams
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * links needed to Malcolm Marshall and John Woodcock
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

County cricketer and success against England

 * link needed to England Test team
 * link needed to Vivian Richards
 * Both done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wisden cricketer of the year

 * "He also managed to take 20 wickets for Leeward Islands" – remove "managed to take" and use "took"
 * "West Indies next matches were in England" – apostrophe after West Indies and specify that it was in 1991
 * link to Scyld Berry
 * link to South Africa national team
 * These four done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "instead of strategically resting in the first Test, or had he been fully fit in the final game" – awkward construction that needs to be revised
 * Done, I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * NatWest Trophy links to redirect – link to current article and use pipeline
 * Again, this is actually fine, but done anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Second tour of Australia

 * World Series Cup links to redirect – link to current article and use pipeline
 * As above, but done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Alan Border ==> Allan Border
 * Ouch! Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * link to Sri Lanka team
 * Best not, as the mention of Sri Lanka here refers to the country, which should not be linked per overlinking. Instead, linked first mention of the team. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

More success against England

 * Curiosity – "rumours that he planned to retire.?[60]" – what is the little box with OBJ in it just before the citation number? It also appears in the citation. It recurs in other places and citations later.
 * I can't actually see this, so I don't know what it is! Maybe a browser issue? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Shoulder injury

 * link to New Zealand team
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Team in decline

 * "Writing in Wisden, Greg Baum suggests that Ambrose absence..." ==> "Writing in Wisden, Greg Baum suggested that Ambrose's absence..."
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "But when England toured..." – "But" is out of context given previous sentence: an "and" is needed.
 * Just removed but. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * link to Matthew Engel
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Final years of career

 * links to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe national teams and to Dhaka
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * link to West Indies Cricket Board
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * link to Mike Selvey
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * link to music but also state the type(s) of music he played (e.g., rock, blues, reggae, etc.)
 * Done, but I don't think music needs a link. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Style and technique

 * link to "The Guardian"
 * "offered as easy delivery" ==> "offered an easy delivery"
 * "he rarely dropped below second, was ranked in the top 10" needs an "and"
 * All done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Notes and references
These comply with site standards. The footnotes are useful.

Review summary
I will place the review on hold for ten days pending attention to the above points, none of which are major except for revision of the lead. I think a more thorough copyedit could have been accomplished before nomination and I would recommend greater diligence re linkage. Nevertheless, the article is well researched and generally well written with faultless attention to verification although, as I mentioned above, I would prefer the use of many other sources besides Wisden. --Old Lanky (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've got everything or replied to it, except the lead which I have explained above, and would welcome further input on. It possibly needed a copy-edit, as I was not expecting such a quick review, given the backlog. Also, I've commented on the sourcing above. Thanks for the review, and further comments welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion
Thanks for prompt attention to the review points. I've dealt with the very odd little ￼ symbols which were all allied to newspaper titles in citations and must have been some kind of control character picked from the sources if you copied and pasted the titles. I made a few tweaks to the lead including the addition of birth info to kick things off as it were (several other GA articles do this). I accept the points you have made and, given the GA criteria, this is now most definitely a good article which I am pleased to pass. I'll update the GAN to conclude. Thanks very much. --Old Lanky (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)