Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bart King


 * 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 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Bart King
John Barton King is the greatest cricketer in the history of the United States. Of course, this is my opinion, but also the opinion of many of the greatest cricketers of his generation and later generations. This article has gone through quite a bit of work since I got my hands on it. I tried to do everything systematically with the help of the folks at WP:CRIC. After some initial improvements and edits, it was put up for Peer Review before being listed as a Good Article Candidate. After its promotion to good status, I went to the League of Copyeditors and had someone give it a thorough copy edit. Following this, I put it up for Peer Review Again. After a few more great suggestions from various places, I think that it is now ready to be featured. I've addressed all the concerns that have come up in Peer Reviews and on the talk page save a call for a chart of batting performances. In the cricket wikiproject this task generally falls to Raven4x4x and he has assured me that it's on the way. He's been inactive for a couple weeks, but I don't believe it changes the quality of the article a great deal. It will be a nice addition when it arrives. The CC Morris Cricket Library has been most helpful in scanning images of King (and other Philadelphian cricketers) from their collection for use on Wikipedia. All of this being said, I am hereby nominating Bart King as a Featured Article Candidate.-- Eva  b  d  14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. It was pretty good when I copyedited it a few weeks ago, and it is even better now. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While this is a very interesting and well referenced article, I can't help thinking that it could benefit from some more information about his post-cricket life and career? There's about fifty years there on which the article has barely a word. Angmering 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. I suspect that most of the reviewers and contributors thus far have been interested in the cricket aspect of things so this has not come up. I'll look into that a bit more. Thanks for the helpful criticism.-- Eva  b  d  19:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Any information available on his death, the causes and where he died? LuciferMorgan 19:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can put the general date and location of death on the page. I've also shot off an e-mail to the CC Morris Library to see if they've got any more information on his post-cricket life. That being said, I do not think that this information is essential. This article still meets the comprehensiveness FA criterion because it comprehensively covers that part of his life that makes him notable (his cricket career). My inclination is that he continued in the insurance industry later in life, but that is hardly what makes him notable. If I can find a source that notes this, I'll include it, but I'm not sure much more than that is needed. Thanks so much for your continued suggestions.-- Eva  b  d  20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly his obituary in The Times isn't very helpful on the later life front, simply saying that he died in a Philadelphia nursing home. Angmering 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's better than nothing. It supports the "old age" theory. Do you have a citation on that so it can be included at the end of the article?-- Eva  b  d  22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention, with the citation. Angmering 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Fairly well referred and the fact that he's like the first American cricketer going for FA! Although, I would like a little section about his post life as noted above.--THUG CHILD z  05:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I believe all of the criteria are met by this article. Reads nicely, and is well (but not overly) referenced. Is comprehensible to the non-cricketing reader. As a minor aside, the link for AM Wood's XI in the table needs correcting, as discussed on the article talk page. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support For the same reasons already mentioned. Andrew nixon 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.