Talk:Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Orphaned references in Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "haigh": From Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948:  From Bill Johnston (cricketer):  

Reference named "o": From Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948:  From Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "derby": From Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948:  From Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename
I request that the article is renamed to Doug Ring ManyMrog12 (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Doug Ring alrady exists.  What is being proposed amounts to a merge, but no justification is put forward by the nominator.--Grahame (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delisted the nominator is a sock vandal that I have blocked.  YellowMonkey ' ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 05:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523221224/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling.html?class=4%3Bid%3D1070%3Btype%3Dtour to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling.html?class=4%3Bid%3D1070%3Btype%3Dtour
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523221140/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=83%3Bteam%3D2%3Btype%3Dseries to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=83%3Bteam%3D2%3Btype%3Dseries

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Issues with WP:OR
I came across this article while perusing upcoming TFAs, and my initial response to this article was "how does this exist?" The topic seems much too specific to merit an entire article (much less a series of articles, one for each player). However, given that this article survived an AfD already, I'm not going to worry about that.

What I am worried about, though, is the large amount of original research involved in this article. In particular, the article seems to analyze the match statistics on its own instead of relying on others' commentary about the matches. For example, take this line: Johnston then took nine wickets in Australia's victory, cementing his position in the team. The source for this article is a statistical recap of the game – enough to verify the number of wickets, but certainly not sufficient to make the latter statement. Or consider this line: Australia won convincingly by 409 runs. Again, the statistics can be confirmed, but the fact that it was a "convincing" win is likely OR. And later in the same paragraph, there's this line: most of the Test bowlers were given a light workload. Once again, the only citations that seem to support this are raw statistics, so there is no clear source for the analysis offered here. These are three examples in quick succession; there are plenty of other examples in this article.

To anyone watching this article: Can these issues with the article be resolved? (Pinging as major contributor and FA nominator.) If the article can't be improved here, it probably needs to go to FAR. Any feedback on the issues mentioned here would be appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Since the last deletion discussion was held in 2009, I doubt that it is relevant now. I should also mention that YellowMonkey's last edit was published eleven years ago. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 00:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was actually 2014, but that's still a while ago. And thanks for noting when YellowMonkey's last edit was; I probably should have checked that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no experience with FAR but when this article appeared on the main page today I was pretty surprised. I agree with the observations above, given that the bulk of citations are statistical in nature it's clearly based on a substantial amount of original research and I am completely shocked that it managed to pass as an FA and then survive an AfD. As a motorsports editor, this seems analogous to having an article like Carlos Sainz Jr. with Scuderia Ferrari in Formula One in 2021 or Patricio O'Ward with McLaren in IndyCar in 2021, both of which have received substantial non-statistical sources. It honestly just seems a bit ridiculous. If he'd done something really unusual or special that was a major part of cricket history I could understand having an article for it, but I can't help but feel if this article were created today it would fail GNG, OR, and all the rest. Where's the claim of significance? The lead itself says his performance wasn't important, but then we have a full FA on it. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 02:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a false analogy. An article like "Carlos Sainz Jr. with Scuderia Ferrari in Formula One in 2021" is recent and naturally will not have the same amount of sources as an article about an event that is 72/3 years old. An article like that might still be created if it satisfies the WP:GNG criteria, which is an excessively simple threshold. This page is not alone, there's a whole topic about it; these are called WP:SPINOFFs. But I'm not going to deny it deserves to be re-reviewed as it is listed at Unreviewed featured articles/2020. Most of the old FAs haven't aged well. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 18:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a false analogy at all. Both were/are an athlete, with a team, in a particular season of their respective sports. This article has very few non-database sources (26/55 in-line citations are online databases and 9/55 are from a results almanac – 35/55 in-line citations are thus not significant coverage of the subject) and what sources it does have aren't primarily about Doug Ring or the 1948 season (there is one online source that covers Ring. He is not mentioned in the title of any of the offline sources, of which only 3/10 specifically mention the 1948 tour). Even if you don't agree with my examples, my point is that if I created an article with a similar scope and similar quality of sourcing, than you can't deny that it would be challenged and likely merged into a broader article, if not just outright deleted. This article, if it were created today, would be AfDed immediately. In my view, this article is a quirk of Wikipedia and a hangover from days where the site was a lot less regulated. It was created as a standalone article, not a fork, and clearly doesn't have much substance to it. It doesn't need a review, it needs to go, preferably what little content can be saved should be merged to Doug Ring. I imagine quite a few articles in this topic will necessitate similar treatment. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 00:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)}
 * If it needs to go, then nominate it for deletion, why are complaining with me? (CC) Tb hotch ™ 16:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I would like to understand the perspectives of other interested editors since I am not familiar with cricket, the FA review process, or the deletion of featured articles, so jumping straight to an AfD might be seen as overkill or may be a less-than-ideal solution. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 23:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, as a random passer-by from seeing the front page, I was also trying to figure out why this article exists, like maybe Doug Ring was a phenom or something, but it says repeatedly that he played a non-influential role in this 1948 tour... this article seems more like a caricature of how silly Wiki content can get, more than anything. I'm not experienced enough to point to wiki policies or anything but just doing a quick brain check, I'm confused by it. Brightnsalty (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, it's now been over a week since the discussion was opened and nobody seems to be interested in improving the article, so I think it's time to move this to FAR. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never been involved in the FA process but I'm happy to contribute to the review. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 01:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The FAR nomination has been created; see top of page for link. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)