Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arthur Mold/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 00:34, 29 June 2012.

Arthur Mold

 * Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is as comprehensive an article as possible about a cricketer who was incredibly controversial in his time. Mold played cricket for Lancashire and England in the 1890s and was one of the best bowlers of his time. But towards the end of his career, he was "found guilty" of cheating: he was judged to throw rather than bowl the ball, which then, as now, was a huge slur on someone's sportsmanship. There had been whispers for years, but opinion remained divided. His career was very publicly and humiliatingly brought to a close in 1901 and he faded away. This article has had a PR and is currently a GA. All comments welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in when you provide publisher locations
 * Check formatting of quotes within titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed all of these. Thanks Sarastro1 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Support 1a; 2a, b, c; 3; 4 (not really in a position to judge 1b or 1c). I have no knowledge of the subject matter, and haven't even ever watched a complete cricket match, but I found the text understandable (thanks to strategically placed wikilinks) and the prose well executed. A few minor quibbles are listed below, but do not affect my support. Sasata (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "In 1894, he again represented the North and the Players, took 207 wickets in total at an average of 12.30." seems to me that "took" should be "taking"
 * "... by Lancashire during 1900 which raised £2,050" which-> that; add inflation conversion?
 * "the most high profile bowler" hyphenate high-profile?
 * "but continued to bowl with very little opportunity to rest." trim "very"?
 * "to produce a delivery which surprised the batsman" which->that
 * All done. Thanks for the review and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Support: I peer-reviewed this interesting article in April, and my concerns have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the earlier review and your support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – Only thing I see is that there is a variance between "CricketArchive" and "Cricketarchive" in the refs, which should be made consistent. I have no other complaints to report. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've sorted these. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – Everything looks great, as is the norm for these cricket bios. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments - as usual, an interesting and well-constructed article from Sarastro1.
 * "Mold began his cricket career as a professional playing ..." surely not, he must have played amateur cricket before this?
 * Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Banbury link there just links to the town, is there a CC link, or should there be one (albeit red)?
 * I think linking to the town is better, simply as anyone following a link to the club (especially the red-link) will very possibly have no idea where Banbury was. I'd prefer to leave it, but would change it if it was a huge issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "playing for Banbury and Northamptonshire but by 1889" no context for "by 1889" since you haven't told us when he played for Banbury etc.
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure it's 100% clear that "the following year" is 1901 (if indeed it is), i.e. "avoided several games" could be over years (these days it would take a while to be umpired by the same guy several times).
 * Added the year. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "in which Phillips was umpire" -> "when/where Phillips umpired".
 * I actually think "in which" is better here. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "after a few more appearances" never keen on "a few".
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "ceased to be a problem" not sure on this. You mean it wasn't prominently reported or prominently identified?  It could have been a problem for 50 years without anyone doing anything about it.
 * I think I've tightened this. Replaced with "concern", as no one seemed worried by it anymore. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't mention in the lead how he bowled. The infobox says he was a fast bowler, the image (in my mind) of him begs to differ...!
 * First sentence: "who played first-class cricket for Lancashire as a fast bowler"! On the picture, I agree. Worth checking out the youtube footage of him bowling without really trying, as well. But he was undoubtedly fast at his peak. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. I saw that.  Honest. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On that note, check his birthdate between lead and infobox.
 * Oh dear. Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't over link his birth/death location in the infobox.
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "He began to play for..." -> "He began by playing for"?
 * It sounds better but I'm not sure it is correct; no idea if they were his first team or if he played for someone else too. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * " In his second year, a successful match against Free Foresters, a prestigious amateur team," is the prestige referenced anywhere?
 * OK, that one threw me. No it isn't, and I can't really find anything to say what they were. So, cut back to "amateur" for the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Manchester Cricket Club has no link? Really?
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * " ten wickets in a game" do you mean "in a match"?
 * Not sure it's a big deal, but changed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "a team from Surrey" was it a team from Surrey or was it Surrey CCC as you linked?
 * Yes, the county. It was Surrey Club and Ground; rather than include that cumbersome title, which is fairly meaningless to the general reader, I went for a team from Surrey. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "on 9 May 1889, taking one wicket in a drawn game." perhaps "on 9 May 1889, taking one wicket in a match which finished in a draw." to stop giving people the impression the match was a one day game (where a draw isn't possible....)
 * Kept "drawn game" but clarified that it was a three day match; as you say, it really wasn't clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't overlink Australia in the infobox.
 * That one is the infobox, not me. Can't change it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "first official County Championship" is there a better link to the specific county championship rather than just the generic article?
 * There is, but I think the generic article will mean more. The general reader would want to know what the CC was, not what happened in 1890. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a query, if selected for a match but the match being abandoned with no play, does that count as a "cap"?
 * Not according to the stats; also, the Wisden article states that the final XI was not chosen, and that the final place was between Mold and someone else. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do our normal readers know what a "representative side" is?
 * No, but the note at the end of the sentence clarifies it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Mold continued to increase his number of wickets in the next seasons" reads a little odd to me, maybe "Mold increased his wicket tally" (or something similar, but less American-sounding?)
 * I agree. Tried to improve it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "as an extremely successful fast bowler" a shade hyperbolic, is there a quote or a specific link to back this up?
 * No, I was reading Cardus' obituary of Mold and got carried away. Cut back to successful. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "to 150 at 18.12" I would say "at an average of ..."
 * I'm not too sure of the best way to do this. I agree "at an average of" is better, but it gets awfully repetitive, so I try to add some variety with "at". Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, just didn't want to confuse our non-cricketing readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * " £2,050, a record total at the time and worth around £173,000 in 2010.[2][24]" I think there's a template for this inflation?
 * This one is a minefield. I prefer to keep it simple like this as it is nice and clear and controllable and verifiable. I'd prefer not to use the template, and to be honest prefer not to use inflation at all. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "the Laws of Cricket." no need for the capital C.
 * Hmmm. All the sources (except our article, bizarrely enough) use a capital C. Should the sources or our article have precedence? (I imagine the MoS is the reason for our article) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the sources, so in this case you're right. It might also be wise for us to move our own article... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "However, Phillips called the Somerset bowler Ted Tyler later in the season." called... called him what?
 * I was hoping that the idea was established by now (explicitly in the notes section) that "called" means "called for throwing". I'd prefer not to have to repeat the laborious "called for throwing"very time. The non-cricketers have not found it an issue so far, so I'd prefer to leave it unless someone explicitly says "what?" Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)," you'd already abbreviated and linked this above.
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "for a time shouting "no-ball" as every ball was bowled," just a comment, amazing this happened 100 years ago when we have football fans shout "hand ball" every time the ball is touched when a decision goes against them....! Plus ca change.
 * Reminds me of Muralitharan in the late 90s in Australia. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "without being no-balled," really? Do you mean without being no-balled for throwing, or no-balled in general?  I find it hard to believe a fast bowler would be able to go without being no-balled for just stepping over the line etc...
 * Clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That's all I could see at a quick look through. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the close eye and very helpful comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I support the article to become featured now, my numerous picky comments have been addressed or satisfactorily considered. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I provided the GA review and found it to be very compelling and just about at FA level. With the subsequent peer review and FAC comments, I don't see any reason not to promote it. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the earlier review, your comments and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Checked the images myself; licensing for all these old photos looks okay, although I'd have thought the Pardon image was just as good a candidate for Commons as the rest of them, no? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The only problem with that one is that the author is unknown and it might not be PD-UK. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) Not a stopper. Now, I recall at your last FAC I suggested that next time we'd better have a spotcheck of sources to maintain your "currency" in that regard, and since this is the "next time"...
 * FN3(a): "...and played a few non-competitive cricket matches for Lancashire. In the same season, Northamptonshire, which at the time had not been awarded first-class status, asked Mold to play for them." -- Understandable editorialising perhaps, but Northamptonshire's first-class status doesn't seem to be mentioned in the source.
 * My mistake, I'm seeing things! Fixed now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FN3(d),(e),(f): Okay.
 * FN5(b): "He made his first-class debut for the county in a three-day match against Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) starting on 9 May 1889, taking one wicket in a drawn game." -- I may have missed something but I didn't see any indication that this was his debut (all else in the sentence is okay).
 * It's a bit obscure, I'm afraid. All the matches on the page have a reference number. Any beginning with "f" are first-class, and this is his first first-class game. There are other references available which would give this information, but I find it tidier to use this one as it includes a lot of detail. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FN5(c): "His best performance statistically was seven for 35 against Yorkshire County Cricket Club, in a match in which he took 13 wickets." -- Again, I feel I must be missing something but I couldn't spot this (a date might've helped)!
 * Again, it's the source which takes a bit of getting used to. It was on 18 July (I've added a date to the text), and it is in the source as match 30 (or f3401). He took 6-76 and 7-35 in the two innings. This was his best performance in first-class matches in 1889, but I'm afraid the only way to see this is to check down the list. There are other ways to verify the information, but this is by far the tidiest in terms of referencing; however, I appreciate that the layout takes a little getting used to. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FN40(a),(b),(d): Okay.
 * Aside from FN5(c), where I can't spot the supporting information at all, if my queries are valid it might indicate that statistical or primary sources are occasionally being credited for a bit more than is actually there, even if that additional stuff is quite non-controversial -- it's easy to do when one is very familiar with a subject. If I'm in error, pls point it out, otherwise, as well as the citations highlighted, best you go through similar sourcing and just check more isn't being attributed to the primary or statistical sources than is really there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The others should be OK, as these are (hopefully!) only to do with a slight lack of clarity in the layout of the source. But the information is there. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, tks for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.