Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Headley/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 SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011.

George Headley

 * Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

George Headley was a West Indian cricketer, mainly in the years before the Second World War. Before he came along, only white West Indian cricketers were highly regarded; he was the first world-class black batsman and his feats on the cricket field had a resonance far beyond the number of runs he scored. In the first part of his career, he racked up some incredible statistics and carried a weak team almost alone; only Don Bradman at the time (and possibly since) could beat his achievements. Later, he became the first black captain of the West Indies, amid a controversy that lasted for the best part of two decades. This article is currently a GA and was peer reviewed by Brianboulton. Any comments and suggestions greatly appreciated! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review
 * Watch for minor inconsistencies in reference format like doubled periods, etc
 * Got them all, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the editorial policy of CricketArchive? That is, is material reviewed for accuracy before publication there?
 * All of the material used here from the site is statistical: scorecards, aggregates and averages. This data comes from the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, which is the leading authority on such information and it is thoroughly researched and reviewed. It is pretty much the most definitive source there is for this data. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The reference to "Cricinfo" leads to the same main website as those labelled CricketArchive - why is this? Are the two one and the same? If so, use a consistent name
 * It was a typo, fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Bridget or Bridgette Lawrence? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another typo, fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * Captions should meet same requirements for prose and MoS details as article text. Captions that are not complete sentences should not end with periods
 * Always miss this one! Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Per the PD-Australia template instructions, "When using this template, please provide information of where the image was first published". Was Lawrence's book (which by the way still uses the "Bridget" spelling on image description pages) the first publication of the images? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not completely sure about this one. I've never seen them elsewhere, but that doesn't mean much. There are a few possibilities where they may have been published first, but I suspect that the Lawrence book is their first publication. But I can't be 100% sure. What is the best course of action? (And if I had the information, how/where do you add it?) --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had the information, you would add it to the image description page, either here or on Commons (depending where the image is hosted). If the images were published for the first time in the Lawrence book, I believe this would affect their copyright status (as that work was published relatively recently), but you should consult an image expert or WP:MCQ for help in determining that (sorry, but US copyright laws are not something I know a lot about). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My (very hazy) understanding of PD-AUS is that ANY photo taken before 1 January 1946 is PD, regardless of its publication date; and anything PD in Australia before that date also qualifies as PD-US. But I will check on MCQ. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Any photo taken in Australia before 1955 is now in the public domain in Australia due to copyright expiry by 2005 when the law changed. The USA recognises this under the free trade agreement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the issue here is the US copyright status of the image, not the Australian status. PD in one country does not always equate to PD in another (differences in pma durations, rejection of shorter terms, etc).  In the case of the US, there is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).  Per http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, any work first published outside the US after 1978 and not in that country's public domain as of 1 Jan 1996 is copyrighted for "70 years after death of author, or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication" in the US.  That explains the template's request for the Australian photograph to be taken before 1 Jan 1946: photographs taken after that date (and published after 1978) were still copyrighted in Australia on 1 Jan 1996, and hence likely copyrighted in the US per 70 years pma or 95 years post publication.  Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, that shouldn't be a problem as this image was certainly taken before 1946 and would have been PD in 1996. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether an image is uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons, it must either be appropriately licensed or in the US public domain:
 * File:George Headley.jpg: From the Don Bradman scrapbooks; the source does not state if this was a private photograph given to Bradman (or taken by him) or a newspaper/magazine photograph cut out by him. If Bradman took the photograph, it would certainly be considered published in 1970.  In that event, the photograph would be in Australian public domain on 1 Jan 1996 (pre-1946 photograph), and unless it was registered with the US copyright office, this photograph would also be in the US public domain.  If this is, however, a private photograph, then it remains an unpublished work... and has a US copyright of 70 years pma (if authorship can be identified) or 120 years since creation (if unestablished, lasting till 2051/2052).


 * File:Grimmett1937.jpg: This photograph is in the Australian public domain (owing to creation greater than 50 years ago). Its status in the US is less clear.  This is copied from the original nitrate photonegative; it does not give any indication whether this work has been published.  Since publication is generally accepted only if the work was released by the copyright holder, release by the NSW state library cannot be considered as publication.  If this work was published (in a newspaper or given away in copies by the photographer), then it would most likely be PD in the US (by virtue of PD in Australia on 1 Jan 1996).  However, if it was never published, it is also considered an unpublished work in the US and deserving of 70-years pma (if author is known), or 120 years from creation (unpublished unknown authorship)...


 * File:Headley head and shoulders.jpg, File:Headley, Sealy and Hunte.jpg: Taken from a 1995 Leicester book; the question is whether the printing of the photographs in that book is authorized and the first publication. If yes, then these are UK works (first publishing in UK; under the Berne's Convention, the country of origin is  the country of first publication) and enquiry should be made to ascertain the identity of the photographer per UK law ("reasonable enquiry").  If the book printing is not the first publication, then the country of origin (i.e. whether they were published and where) should be ascertained first.


 * Refs:
 * Public domain: publication is qualified by an authorized release and accessible to the general public (photographs in archives are in likelihood of being unpublished works).
 * Public domain: Berne Convention lets the signatory country make its own rules regarding unpublished anonymous works.
 * Wikipedia talk:Public domain: simply put, the US copyright duration for any unpublished foreign work is by US law: 70 years pma for known authorship, and 120 years since creation for unknown or corporate authorship (Prosfilaes)
 * commons:Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 5: backs the above
 * --Jappalang (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, in that case there may be a problem. Re the Bradman photo, I'm not sure if he took it or if it was registered in the US. The other two photos were probably published in Australia at some point, but I have no idea where. Possibly in a newspaper, but I am unlikely to be able to locate it. Also, as far as I can tell, the UK publishers of the book have gone out of business so they cannot be contacted to find out where the photos came from. So, unfortunately, I cannot be sure that any of the images are PD-US and it will be better if I simply remove the images. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Cricinfo, File:George Headley.jpg has neither been taken in Australia nor before 1946. Cricinfo states that it was taken during this 1951 match in England. Does that mean that it should be removed from Commons, or does it depend from when and where it was first published? OrangeKnight (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated, the copyright status in US should be the primary guide. On Commons, there is the additional rule for the work to be "free" as well in the country of origin (basically there are cases where PD in one country does not equal to PD in another).  If a work is not "free" in the US and in its country of origin, it should not be on Commons.  If it is "free" in the US, but not in its country of origin, it should be uploaded to Wikipedia.  I do not know what is the story for the discrepancy behind this photograph, but it is not inconceivable for either Bradman or Cricinfo to mistake the photograph's date.  Such problems can usually come up if their source is an unmarked photograph (totally clean of any marks) and they had to place it based on their own interpretation.  Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I see that all images have been removed, which is something of a shame. I am sure that an acceptable fair use rationale could be made for a portrait of Headley, since he is the subject of the article. It should also be possible to add a few general images, e.g. of the Lord's pavilion, at the ground where Headley made two Test centuries in the 1939 match. There are some pre-rebuilding shots of the Kensington Oval ground where Headley made his Test debut; a little searching might produce a few more such shots to illuminate the text. I did a comprehensive peer review on this, and I think it does a very decent job as a cricket biography, going beyond the scores and performances emphasis of some similar articles. I would like to see the images issue resolved, though, before I commit to a support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments; I've managed to hunt out a few images and added a fair use image of Headley. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The four images now in use are fine in my view. Please contact Nikkimaria for her opinion.  Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, they look fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Further comment: I have run through the article with a further copyedit. A few points still bother me:- Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Headley was abused by the crowd, who disapproved of a black captain and jeered his actions on the field. He was also dissatisfied with the impartiality of the umpires, making for an unpleasant experience all round." First, I think you need to specify "verbally abused", secondly, "a section of the crowd". The last comment, "making for an unpleasant experience all round" reads as opinion and should be either attributed or deleted.
 * Career figures should be given after his last first-class match, not after his last Test.
 * The statement "Headley's successes reverberated beyond cricket" sounds like a quote. As per above it should either be attributed or dropped.
 * All done (I think). --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: I have chivvied around this article for quite a while, and Sarastro has responded positively to my concerns, with good grace. No doubt the article could be primped further, but I am satisfied that it now meets the necessary criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, and thanks for all your help. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Have read through most of the article, and what I've seen looks very good. Only a handful or so of small issues to report so far...
 * "and 9,921 runs in all first-class matches at an average 69.86." Should "of" be added before the last number?
 * "although a combination of injuries and politics meant he only led his team for one Test Match." Don't see why "Match" needs to be capitalized; it isn't earlier, and isn't a proper noun.
 * Early career: "arrived to play two first-class games against Jamaica. Jamaica's...". The end of this is a bit repetitive. Try changing one of the Jamaicas, if possible.
 * Second tour of England: "top-scored with 51 in West Indies first innings...". Minor, but an apostrophe is needed at the end of Indies the way the sentence is now. Same for the sentence after this. and in "demonstrated West Indies ability to compete at the highest level."  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All done, thanks for the comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After the war: "he had recorded Jamaica's highest score in an match between the Caribbean islands." "an" → "a".
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Resumption of Test career: Apostrophe needed at end of country name in "Batting toward the end of West Indies second innings".
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Missing "to" in "he was unable play in any further matches...".
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Style, technique and legacy: Don't see why Cricket needs capitalization in "In his history of West Indies Cricket".
 * It doesn't, fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Manley quote regarding Headley's "deepest significance" feels like it has something missing, whether it be some punctuation or a word or two. See if you can track it down in the book cited.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Coaching career: Remove the space following "and trying to improve standards and facilities throughout the country".
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference 40 needs a period at the end of the cite for consistency with the other footnotes.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 23:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Comments - looking through now - will jot queries below : Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 *  Headley's mother took him to Jamaica; she wished him to be educated in an English-speaking school - normally I like semicolons, but I think this'd flow better with a comma + "as" after it instead. Just comes across as a little stilted.
 * Rephrased. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  The MCC side was not at full international strength - leaves me wondering why....
 * It is a little too much to explain in the main text, so I've added a note. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  to the disapproval of some Barbadians who thought his place should have gone to a more deserving local player - was there someone specific in mind here?
 * No, just general discontent that he took a place which in their view should have gone to one of their team. Not sure how I can phrase it better at the moment, so I'm open to suggestions. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  Batting at number three, he played aggressively in the first innings but was bowled for 21, and the crowd barracked him - hmmm, the last clause is odd tacked on at the end - presumably they barracked for him while he was batting, in which case it looks odd mentioning it after you mention he was out.
 * Moved the clause. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In para two of the Debut and first Test series section, not sure if the first sentence is necessary as it is a little repetitive. "celebrate" mentioned twice in the first few sentences.
 * Cut first sentence. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  When the first Test began, West Indies were bowled out 296 as Grimmett took seven wickets, including Headley first ball. - sounds awkward. I'd change the first clause to "On the first day of the first test (if it was only on the first day) or something like it.
 * Not just on the first day, but tweaked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  So successful was Headley that he was described by Grimmett as the best on-side batsman against whom the bowler had played --> " So successful was Headley that he was described by Grimmett as the best on-side batsman he had played against "
 * I actually prefer the first one; I originally had it as you have, but Brianboulton copy-edited the article and I think this is an improvement. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah figured someone else would - there's a rather long story behind this - subordinate clause bsed on old English vs classical Latin...and the whole ending a sentence with a preposition issue (which I have no problem with), so no a deal-breaker in this case :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments so far, much appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – My two batches of comments above have both been dealt with, and I think this will make an excellent addition to the large group of cricket-related FAs. Writing, sources, etc. are at the high level I've come to expect from this bunch of editors.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 23:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.