Talk:Ron Hamence/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ron Hamence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * Lead
 * "Already the youngest Australian to play district cricket, as of 19 May 2008 with the death of Bill Brown, he is also the oldest surviving Australian Test cricketer." Why as of 19 May? Bill Brown died in March, and Ron Hamence will now always be the oldest surviving Test cricketer until he dies. I'd either change to the date of Bill Brown's death, or omit the date altogether, and re-word to "following the death of ..." or "after the death of ..." or something like that.
 * Agreed and reworded although SGGH may want to have some input here -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Career
 * "début" or "debut"?
 * debut, now fixed -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "when he was caught". I understand "caught" but is there a wikilink to add a definition? I expect there must be an article on the methods of dismissal in cricket.
 * added -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What was Don Bradman's XI?
 * A representative selection, chosen to play a match to raise money for the war effort. It was commonplace in Australia at the time to select two teams, one named for the Test captain and one named for the Test vice-captain to play in such one-off matches; either for charity, to support a benefit, or as a Test trial.  The selections, reasonably arbitrary, would change from match to match depending on the availability of players etc. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it ought to say "not out" rather than * for such scores. It's easier to read for non-cricketers.
 * done -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "He returned to domestic cricket, however over six innings he failed to pass 27." I think this needs a slight re-wording, because it seems a little awkward. However, I may be wrong and not quite reading it right at the moment.
 * Reworded to "however, over six innings his highest score was 27" Once again SGGH may wish to comment'' -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Hamence was a popular member of the touring squad and his cheerful nature and splendid tenor voice added to the good spirits of the team." Have you got a reference for this, or is it the one at the end of the next sentence?
 * No, it is from Pollard. Added now. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "No 6" and "No 3". I think "No" should be expanded to number.
 * 'It's a direct quote from Sid Barnes' book. I personally would agree with you, but I am loathe to meddle with the quote. Batting order (cricket) is linked earlier in the quote. Your advice? -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only a minor thing really, so I'll leave it up to you. If he wrote it, it's probably best left as "No 6". If it's a spoken quote later written down, I'd perhaps go for "number 6" because no-one says while speaking "No 6". But it's not going to affect whether this passes or fails, so I'll let you have the final verdict on it. Peanut4 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Might footnote it as it is a direct quote from his book, so I would assume those are his words as written. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just check to make sure all &nbsp 's are in there.
 * Run through again and added some more to be safe -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not much really to do, and I think it should be there. Peanut4 (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Minor final points
 * "Short and compact". What does this mean? I guess it means a "short and compact batsmen" or "short and compact batting technique". I'd suggest a slight re-word to explain exactly what you mean, with perhaps an appropriate wikilink. At the moment its very much cricket jargon. Or is it short in height and compact in style?
 * ''The quote is "Short, compact, always cheerful ..." so I would assume it is about Hamence himself rather than his batting technique. Reworded along the lines of your first suggestion." -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment it now says batsman twice in that sentence. However, I would try keep as close to the quote as possible to ensure you don't misquote the description. After that, I think we're all done. Peanut4 (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reworded' -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you okay with the way it's now worded and whether it agrees with the source? Peanut4 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The infobox has his date of birth as 25 November 1915 but every other date is now month first, i.e. November 25, 1915. But I don't know how to change that line. All dates should follow the same format per WP:DATE.
 * All dates should now be in line with the infobox date format. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "He scored 63 against Western Australia on February 16, 1940 at the end of the 1939–40 season,[10] and then 41 in the following match" Was the 41 scored after the end of the season or were these the last two games of the season? Combined with the next few sentences, it's not clear where the new season starts.
 * Now clarified. The WA game was the last of 39-40 and the NSW game was the first of 40-41. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Hamence was not to play another first-class match until December 1945." I presume this is because of the Second World War?
 * Yes, reworded slightly to clarify. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the general nomenclature of Second World War in Australia? I prefer Second World War, but if World War II is accepted, then that's fine.
 * Both are used reasonably interchangeably. I prefer Second World War myself and use it in other cricket bios such as Ian Johnson (cricketer).  Have changed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "playing for Bradman's XI against those of Lindsay Hassett" What does those refer to?
 * Lindsay Hassett's XI. Similar to the explanation above, Bradman's team was playing a team lead by the Test vice captain, Lindsay Hassett. I have reworded slightly for (what I think is) clarity. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've just found those. Was giving it a read through before about to pass it. Shouldn't be too difficult to fix again though I hope. Peanut4 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, thanks again. Hopefully SGGH is happy with the changes. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All those changes are fine, thanks Mattinbgn. Sorry for not being able to do any myself, I've been away. SGGH speak! 11:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is MCC in the career section, Marylebone Cricket Club or Melbourne Cricket Club? Peanut4 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The first. I have replaced MCC with English cricket team in Australia in 1936-37. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just found the scorecard at cricket archive, and it says Marylebone Cricket Club, so I've changed the link to that. If it's part of the touring part, amend to something you feel appropriate e.g. MCC as part of the English touring party, but since the scorecard gives MCC, I feel that should be identified correctly. Peanut4 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this. The team, while called MCC, is actually the English touring team.  It is one of the quirks carried over from the days when touring teams were private business arrangements and needed an auspicing body to arrange fixtures, etc. From the Marylebone Cricket Club article: "From the beginning of the 20th century, the MCC organised many of the early England cricket teams, and outside of Test matches the touring England team officially played as "MCC" up to and including the 1976/77 tour of Australia." Given this, the wording and link to the touring team is more specific and more accurate. I have changed it back, hope this is OK. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely fine. I never knew this, so it's right to go with your version. Peanut4 (talk) 22:54, 17 June 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):
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

A thoroughly good article. I guess this is part of a push to get The Invincibles to a Featured Topic candidacy, and best of luck with that. But this seems to be in a perfect position for any future attempt to go to FAC. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your review. It has improved the article immensely.  Speaking of the Invincibles FT drive, I have been working on Ian Johnson (cricketer) and while it isn't quite at a stage to take to GA or FA yet, any comments, suggestions etc. would be much appreciated. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)