Talk:Jack Crossland/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 06:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

 * Any image for the lede?
 * Unfortunately not; can't find a picture of him at all!  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You may link English and Nottinghamshire
 * I linked Nottinghamshire, but not English, per WP:OVERLINK.  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "His best year was in 1882,..." no need of "in"
 * Fixed.  Harrias  talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the article you are saying that his bowling average is 10.95 whereas in the infobox it is 12.48.
 * Fixed.  Harrias  talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Early career

 * eight wickets and conceded 88 → eight wickets and conceded eighty-eight........... as you have done in the next sentence
 * twenty eight → twenty-eight
 * I've made this consistent, but in the other way, so all examples should now be of the form "eight for 88".  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Link innings
 * Linked.  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lancashire professional

 * Crossland's performances for Enfield ... Whay is Enfield?
 * The cricket club he played for. Earlier in the article this is mentioned: "Crossland first gained employment as a professional cricketer in 1876, with Enfield Cricket Club."  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * twenty six → twenty-six
 * See above.  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ....at the Oval.[15] → I think this should be The Oval
 * I know that the cricket style guide suggests that, but it's just bad grammar, and I disagree.  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ...touring Australians,[17] In the ..... In should be in
 * Tidied up a little.  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * claiming seven wickets for 72.[20] → "seventy-two" for consistency
 * See above.  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Throwing controversies

 * ...he was never no balled by the umpires.[8] → it was never given no ball by the umpires.
 * I'm not convinced that is an improvement, though I can see your point. I have reworded it, how is it now?  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ...eight for 57... for consistency "fifty-seven"
 * See above.  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A link to "gentlemen's"
 * Linked.  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Termination of county cricket career

 * he took four for 52 and three for 51 .....→ You are not consistant about numbering throughout the article.
 * See above.  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ...at Old Trafford. → at the Old Trafford.
 * Old Trafford is just referred to as such, without the definite article. It would be "the Old Trafford Cricket Ground" though.

Later life and career

 * ...after his explusion.... → "expulsion"
 * I thought it'd be a good cross between expulsion and explosion! Fixed.  Harrias  talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ...bowlers came to a close,... no need of "a"
 * I disagree, in fact, I appear to have actually missed an "a" earlier in the sentence, which I've fixed.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Very smoothly written, I really appreciate your work! Zia Khan 06:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, as always, for your feedback and review. I think I have dealt with all of your comments, feel free to ping me if I've missed anything. I look forward to any further comments you might provide.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Link CricketArchive
 * Linked.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are refs 49 and 51 in Italic
 * Because they are books. It's how the template renders it.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In ref 49, what "(1980) and [1899]" means?
 * It means that it is a 1980 publication of a book first published in 1899.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Final review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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: b:
 * 1) Conclusion: Promoted to GA status, good work. Keep it up! Zia Khan 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a: b:
 * 1) Conclusion: Promoted to GA status, good work. Keep it up! Zia Khan 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Conclusion: Promoted to GA status, good work. Keep it up! Zia Khan 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: