Talk:Doug Ring/GA1

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

Images, references, and layout all check out. I just have to give the article a thorough read now, the review should be up within a couple days. Wizardman 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, the cricket terms are linked, which is good since I know next to nothing about cricket. Anyway, the article is pretty good, but I have a few things that need fixing:
 * "At the end of the season, he was picked for "The Rest" in the match against the Shield winners," What exactly is "the rest"?
 * Reworded to explain who The Rest are/were. Johnlp (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "In the slightly phoney first-class season of 1940-41," phoney makes it sound pov. would shortened or a similar phrase work better here?
 * Removed pov words. Johnlp (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "The injury would flare up from time to time, especially in cold weather, and this could affect his length." Can this be converted to active voice from passive?
 * I've added a few words that will hopefully clarify. Johnlp (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "the tour led by Donald Bradman that became known, through its unbeaten record, as "The Invincibles"." Citation needed
 * There is a sort-of citation here already. Did you want a different one? If so, it may have to come from our Australian contributors, because I think the phrase originated there. Johnlp (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind that one. I added in the cite myself and forgot to remove this issue. Wizardman  02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "though his own contribution was just 6 not out." This statement I just don't get. not out of what?
 * Removed the words "not out". As he was there when the innings ended (in a victory), it will be evident to cricket followers that he was not out (see not out (cricket) for a rather vague explanation]] and to non-cricket folk it is, as you say, confusing. Johnlp (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Across the rest of the five-match Test series against South Africa, Ring took only seven more wickets, and he tended to be expensive." The use of "expensive" seems confusing to me here.
 * Clarified by saying he was expensive in terms of runs conceded off his bowling. Johnlp (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Ring had three children with his wife Lesley." Any info on when they were married? if not no big deal, just may be interesting to add in.
 * I have no further information on this: Mrs Ring's name is in virtually every obit that I can find, but no further details. Johnlp (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Victoria only make available online information on marriages before 1942 and Ring does not appear there (meaning that unless he went back to Tasmania to marry, he was married after 1942). A extract can be purchased from the registry if needed but, as you say, it is not essential at this stage. I can not find a source with details on the marriage. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the main issue with this article is that it isn't too friendly to those that are not cricket enthusiasts. It's not too easy to follow at times, so I'd probably oppose an FAC at this point. (That may not be your fault though, I might just not be good at putting all the aspects of cricket together) That being said, I would pass it as a GA upon the fixation of the above points. I'll put it on hold and give you guys a few days. Wizardman 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's really helpful to have a review from a non-cricket follower. Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your overall positive view. Johnlp (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll read through the article again. If I don't find anything I'll pas it, if not I'l let you know what else I found.  Wizardman  02:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "The timing was good: the next match at the MCG was the fifth and final Test against India and Ring was selected, replacing Colin McCool," What timing? Sentence doesn't feel right. Where was the timing good?
 * Reworded. It was basically a good time for him to put in a good performance (in the previous paragraph), since the Test team for the very next game at the Melbourne Cricket Ground was being picked as he bowled. Johnlp (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "A wet wicket led to 22 wickets falling on the first day," What's a wet wicket?
 * Reworded as "wet pitch". Ring bowled in a period when the pitches in cricket were mostly uncovered and open to the elements. It made for more variety in batting and bowling conditions, and at times led to spectacularly unplayable bowling. But in the end it was decided that it was too much of a lottery, and all pitches have been covered whenever there's no play on them for the past 30 years or so. Johnlp (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "At the end of the England tour, he retired from both first-class and Test cricket." Any further detail on why he retired? Again, if not no huge deal, though it would be nice.
 * No great insight here. Generally Australian cricketers of that vintage tended to retire some time in their middle 30s; Benaud was a dozen years younger than Ring and a better batsman, and one website says that, on the 1953 tour of England, Ring taught Benaud the one kind of leg-spin ball that Benaud hadn't previously been able to master. So kinda inevitable really. But I'm inclined not to add anything unless you think it would be worthwhile. Johnlp (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be everything now. Wizardman  16:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, that explains anything I had concerns with. I'll now pass the article. Good work. Wizardman  18:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Johnlp (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)