Talk:Robert Key (cricketer)/GA1

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


 * Lead
 * It needs expanding per WP:LEAD to fully summarise the entire article. Remember this is the first thing a reader will read.


 * Early life
 * "Key was raised in a particularly sporting family: his mother played for Kent's ladies side," Is this cricket?
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Key himself was a keen all-round sportsman; he also played tennis for his county." Which county?
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the second paragraph would be better done chronologically.


 * Youth career
 * Why are the first two paragraphs split? If you want it as two separate paragraphs, it would be best split after "Glamorgan seconds" and keep all the U17 tournament together.
 * You've wikilinked second eleven, which is fine. Is there an appropriate wikilink for "first-class cricket"?
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Domestic career
 * "2001 saw Key's form improve" I don't like the sentence starting with the year. This is repeated with 2004 and 2007.
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "with four first-class centuries coming from his bat" This sounds very odd, why not just "with Key / him scoring four first-class centuries"?
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "who had the likes of Wasim Akram and Mushtaq Ahmed in their side." "The likes" is very informal.
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still unsure why you've picked out Akram and Mushtaq in this sentence. Were their any other test players among the bowlers? Peanut4 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should just get rid of that, seeing as the entire side was Test quality... -AMBerry (t|c) 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "His highest score of the season (and indeed, career to date) would come in the final game," rmv the brackets, since it's the highest score of his career it's important enough not to put in brackets. "Indeed" is also superfluous. On first read, I also thought "to date" meant until now.
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "including a "majestic" unbeaten 118" Why was it majestic?
 * This was quoted from the ref given, will move the cite to directly after "majestic". AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote marks and previous reference position are fine. I just wondered whether there were any more details, which could be added to say why it was described as "majestic."? Peanut4 (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just found something... -AMBerry (t|c) 13:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Following the winter international series in South Africa, Key returned to domestic action, and while not having as successful a season as the previous, he still scored over 1500 runs." Run-on sentence, needs either breaking up or re-wording.
 * "where in compiling the second of these" where is incorrect, re-word to "during the second of which" or something similar.
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Still needs fixing. Peanut4 (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm... no it doesn't, unless someone's snuck it back in... -AMBerry (t|c) 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some short paragraphs towards the end of this section.


 * International career
 * Do you know why Key was chosen ahead of any other possible batsmen?
 * "Key managed innings of 30 and 34" I think scores is better than innings. I don't think you need managed either, perhaps just "Key scored 30 and 34."
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Key was dropped from the fourth and final Test," Why was Key dropped? Was it his batting form / his dropped catches / Trescothick's return?
 * "Brought back into the side for the second Test," Who did he replace? And why?
 * "Key produced his best performance in the Tests" How was it his best when he scored 50+ in the next test?
 * Erm.... that may have been quoted from a source that has been chopped off somewhere. I'll look into it.... AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Key was the only English batsman to resist long," What does this mean?
 * "lbw" either expand or the previous time it was used, explain that lbw is a shortened form, e.g. leg before wicket (lbw)
 * The last par of the Australia tour is just one sentence long. Either expand it, or tag it onto the previous par.
 * "he kept his place in the Test match side" I don't think you need match.
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "first-Test" no need for they hyphen.
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "ODI" ditto to lbw
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "New Zealand towards the back-end of the group stage" towards the end will do.
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "The second Test saw Key looking uncertain outside his off stump," Verging on jargon, I understand what you mean, but many other readers won't. It needs rewording.
 * Quite agree, I'll have a think over that one in a bit. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Initially with Michael Vaughan, and then with Andrew Flintoff," this really needs batting after initially.
 * Fixed. AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Key scored an unbeaten 93 to guide England to their target; which was a record fourth innings total to win an Old Trafford Test." the semi-colon should be a comma or the last clause re-written to include a subject and main verb.
 * "The fourth Test, played at the Wanderers, saw Key hit 83, in a partnership of 182 with Andrew Strauss that Wisden described as including "hard-hitting support from Key".[48] His second innings saw him add a further eighteen to his match tally, a contribution which helped England to an eventual victory. The final Test, played at SuperSport Park, saw Key return single figure scores of one and nine in his two innings, being dismissed by Shaun Pollock on both occasions in a rain-affected draw." You've used "saw" three times in quick succession. It's not the best verb to use anyway, but it certainly shouldn't be overused.


 * General
 * Numerals and units should be broken by a non-breaking space, e.g. 206 runs.
 * Figures over 1000 should have a comma, e.g. 1,309
 * The article could do with better referencing. There's nothing controversial I can see, but there are some facts for which it wouldn't harm to reference.
 * It might be a good idea to wikilink batting dismissals, the first time they appear, as well as fielding positions.
 * seealso wikilinks have a mixture of dashes and hyphens. They should be endashes
 * I'll have to set up a couple of redirects first, shouldn't be too difficult... AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is also a mixture of spaced endashes, and spaced emdashes. Emdashes should be unspaced, but I think it would be best for it to be either all endashes or all emdashes.
 * Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer. You've gone overboard with the emdashes. The emdashes should be unspaced in text only. For numbers and number ranges, they are always endashes per WP:DASH. Peanut4 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Should really stick brain in gear in future. -AMBerry (t|c) 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any more images available? The only one there is quite poor quality.
 * Not free use ones, for the moment anyway. May be able to take some in the next couple of weeks, weather permitting of course... AMBerry (t|c) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a bit to do, but nothing major. The text maybe could do with a copy-edit too, perhaps from an independent editor, but you might want to leave that till after the GA process. So, I'll put it on hold for the time being. Peanut4 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I'll get on with addressing the points you've made. AMBerry (t|c) 20:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything should now have been addressed (apart from the image issue. Will scour the net, but cannot guarantee anything...) - AMBerry (t|c) 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Only a couple of things marked above and I'll give it another full read through. Don't worry too much about the images yet. It's not a requirement for GA. But if you can find some in the future, it would be great. Peanut4 (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Final review
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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 (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Needs more images. See below.
 * 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):
 * Needs more images. See below.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Very nice job. Well done.

The article is a very good start to further improving the article. It's definitely more than a sound basis to take this article on to a possible future FAC bid. My main suggestions to improve it, if you were to go for FAC, would be:
 * Find and add more images. The only current image, isn't of the best quality either.
 * The last two paragraphs of the personal life section, could be moved and expanded to either the other sections or totally new sections. However, at the moment, both are fine where they are now.
 * I would suggest getting a copy-edit, especially from someone who doesn't understand cricket jargon. I've tried to keep a neutral stance, but there will be terms I understand that I've overlooked. Plus, this is GA and not FA anyway.
 * Again, I would suggest getting a peer review for further advice on improvement to the current text and possible expansion.

All the best with the future of the article. It's been a great job till now. Peanut4 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)