Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 20:54, 28 June 2008.

Donald Bradman

 * previous FAC


 * Nominator: Dweller

This is an article that's been the subject of a tremendous amount of work in the last few months. There have been many contributors who've moved the article on from the excellent base provided, notably by User:Phanto282.

The article has undergone a (more than) extensive Peer Review, has been copy-edited by a number of terrific volunteers and some of the more contentious aspects of the article have been thoroughly debated by the cricket experts at WP:CRIC and by FAC regulars at the article talk page.

I strongly believe that this article would not be out of place among those that espouse our best qualities.

Being defensive for one minute - it is slightly longer than I think ideal, but the man was a phenomenon and utterly notable. For about 70 years he was the subject of the fascination of millions, if not billions of people, as a player, administrator, writer and thinker. The article's about as short as we could make it without rendering it not comprehensive. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Citeweb issues raised by Nishkid64


 * Various comments from User:Gary King

Gary King ( talk ) 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Copy issues from User:Giants2008


 * Status? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have addressed these points on behalf of the nominator, if that is satisfactory. -- 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 100% Support - One of the finest sports articles on Wikipedia in my humble view. One final comment from me: August 27 is Bradman's 100th birthday. Sounds like a perfect Main Page date to me. Giants2008 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

no consensus by User:Bole2

Comments


 * Comments..looks pretty good...I have to nitpick a bit to find things to complain about....but here goes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bradman was unprepared for the intensity of his reception... -why not just 'surprised by' (or was that the original verb?)
 * Dunno. Happy to amend. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In 15 Test matches since the beginning of 1930,.. 'since' makes me think of the present, why not simply 'from'?
 * This has resulted from recent edits from other users. I'll amend - it's lost the reason for the stat being presented, as well as becoming stilted. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bradman had several other problems to deal with at this time. - could drop the 'several' I think, nothing is lost by its removal.
 * Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris Harte's analysis of the situation.. - hang on, who is Chris Harte? A word on who he is should be placed in front of him (biographer?)
 * Chris Harte, now retired, was a cricket journalist and commentator in Australia. He wrote at least four cricket books besides History of Australian Cricket and he is widely known among the cricket writing fraternity; he is also widely quoted.  I'm surprised there is not an article about him on WP yet but, then, I still say that our cricket coverage even now has more redlinks than blue. BlackJack | talk page 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, just slotting in a 'Cricket author' before the first mention of his name will do very nicely. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, I did it myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bradman suffered "a discernable and not unexpected wilting of spirit". - not fond of overuse of quotes especially when they aren't particularly notable. can we just say he grieved or got depressed?
 * I think this one's important. I don't really want to be accused of making up that he was depressed or grieving or whatever, so reproducing faithfully the exact words of the RS makes accusations of POV or OR or bad faith unanswerable. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh heck, none of these are real deal-breakers, so...Support conditional on fixing or telling me why I shouldn't bother with the above quibbles. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Davis' book is listed among the references. Do we have it ? If we do, we should use it instead of references 220 and 221. Tintin 14:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't, and the other key editors I've asked haven't either. Otherwise, I agree with you. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a superb article and I think the expectancy of some of the comments above is that it must be inch perfect because of Bradman's stature in world sport.  I think we need to remember that a featured article does not have to be A-class (i.e., complete).  I have read one biography of Bradman (i.e., Brightly Fades the Don) and am completely familiar with many details of his career.  The article does not omit anything worthy of note, in my opinion, and I cannot see anything at all that I find remotely suspect.  In terms of readability and provision of information, I give it 10/10.  Excellent work by all concerned.  BlackJack | talk page 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In terms of article grades, FA class is a step above A class. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Is "discernable" (Later years and legacy section, ref 166) Frith's mis-spelling of "discernible" or a typo? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No idea. If it is a sic typo, it comes across a little pernickety to reproduce it, anyway. I'm sure Frith himself would approve if I fix it. :-) --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now done. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support—It's a fine article indeed; congratulations to the main authors—you should be proud. I must declare that I made a small contribution to the development of the text a few weeks ago.
 * Suggestion: the boxed quote from the New Chronicle—isn't it stronger in reduced form? "As long as Australia has Bradman she will be invincible ... It is almost time to request a legal limit on the number of runs Bradman should be allowed to make." I don't quite see the relevance of the billiards sentence that I removed here: ("As long as Australia has Bradman she will be invincible ... In order to keep alive the competitive spirit, the authorities might take a hint from billiards. It is almost time to request a legal limit on the number of runs Bradman should be allowed to make."). Btw, I presume that the opening sentence is incomplete—chopped off before it finishes in the original; otherwise, four dots without initial space are necessary....
 * Agreed. The chop will remove a distraction. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's done. And the ellipsis is now unarguable! --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't like these sentences: "In his farewell season for NSW, Bradman averaged 132.44, his best yet.[25] He was appointed vice-captain for the 1934 tour of England. However, his health continued to be variable." Bit choppy, and "variable" sounds funny in this context. Go to the reference to help find a better epithet? TONY   (talk)  15:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll take a look at that. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've amended, using a quote about his health and flowing the second and third sentences better. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

''Thanks, Tony1, and thanks again for the considerable feedback you gave at around the time of the Peer Review. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)''


 * Notes: there is a weasly statement in the lead, cited to Wiki.  We can't cite to Wiki.  The statement should be attributed (claimed by whom) and cited in this article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy. I've avoided citing in the Lead, and this was intended to be a signpost for where to read more (cited) info, but I can see the problem. I'll try to address this later. --Dweller (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There. That should do the trick. --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * NB Thanks to both you and Blnguyen for pointing the way on how to deal with that. --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Epbr123 has been kind enough to do an MOS swoop on the article. It should now be all ship-shape and Bristol fashion. Shiver me timbers. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support While I haven't been part of the team involved in putting this article together, I have followed it through discussions on the acticle talk page, at WT:CRIC and at Peer Review and have chimed in from time to time with my opinion. Having said all that, I feel this article quite clearly meets the featured article criteria.  It has undergone a very rigorous process to get to this stage and rightly so given the level of interest in the subject.  It is well-written, thoroughly sourced, and covers all relevent matters in a even-handed manner.  The only thing I would do differently is to shift the focus slightly from the statistics and place it a little more on Bradman the man.  All the figures, tables and graphs included border on stats-porn and sometimes "less is more". Some themes relating to his personality are merely touched on and an expansion would be useful.  Having said that, these points have been raised at earlier discussions; the consensus is the article balance is fine and I am comfortable with that.  The various split articles also cover Bradman as a person in more detail. Overall, this article is certainly some of Wikipedia's best work.  Well done to the authors. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment "2,960 runs (at 98.66 with 10 centuries)": should this be "at an average of 98.66"?
 * "against the South Africans in the southern hemisphere summer" Would an earlier use of antipodean sound better? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both points now addressed -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Error in the "Bush Cricketer" section: Bradman scored 300 in the Berrima District final of 1925-26. He played with St George the following season, but returned to the Bowral team for the final and scored 320*, which resulted in a rule change barring Sydney Grade players from appearing in the local competition Phanto282 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. My one quibble is with the Davis analysis as stated in the peer review, though that is but one small part of an excellent biography which is compelling and highly informative. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. As long as the recommendations above (all minor problems) are acknowledged i see no problems with the article. It's a large article but it was enjoyable to read, clearly written and does justice to Bradman and Cricket in general. I have to say i was very impressed with the majority of the prose. I only wish i could write so well! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.