Talk:Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The was followed by a match against the Gentlemen of England. The what was followed?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * For the sentence beginning Ring had limited opportunities…, is there no better way to cite this than with 34(!) consecutive notes?
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Placing on hold until the one sentence noted above is correct. Otherwise meets the GA requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed the sentence.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 00:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the 34 cites, unfortunately, the cricket website software only has the means for dynamically building a stats page of breakdown of performances, batting positions, patterns etc for Test/ODI matches between two countries. For other first-class matches, it does not have this functionality. So I had to look up all 34 match records to verify he was always 9/10/11 in the batting order. The Test match search engine would have automatically created a page that summarised "Batting performances by position..."  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 00:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a single note with all 34 links might be better? As with your other nomination, my apologies for the delay in reassessment.— Bellhalla (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)