Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Larwood/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 GrahamColm 18:31, 6 December 2012.

Harold Larwood

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Prior to its submission here, this article received copious talkpage reviews from knowledgeable editors—which is just as well, since I am somewhat out of my comfort zone with sports articles. But I've always been fascinated by Larwood, a cricketer of my father's and grandfather's generations whose stellar career was stalled when he became the instrument of the cricket establishment's dark designs, after which they callously dropped him...or so I have always believed. After all my researches into Larwood's life and career, I have to take on board the possibility that he was to an extent a willing or even eager accomplice, and that the shy, honest-artisan exterior perhaps concealed a cruel, even sadistic streak. Of course, encyclopedic neutrality prevents expression of such private thoughts; whether they have any substance, you can judge for yourself after reading. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: I commented extensively here at an earlier stage of this article's development, and am happy to fully support now. I suspect, with some bitterness, that this may just have raised the bar for cricket articles in future! There is certainly nothing missing from a cricket POV. I've just a few last nit-picks and suggestions from a final read-through, all of which may be allowed to pass harmlessly outside off-stump (or perhaps leg-stump) and do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Larwood and other bowlers were severely punished by Bradman during Australia's victorious tour of 1930": Is "punished" a little sports-speak? Someone may take it literally! Perhaps "dominated" would work better.
 * Something stronger than "dominated" is called for, but to avoid overcolourful phrases I have made it "completely dominated". Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I still have a niggling feeling that the lead is light on his achievements. It mentions his early career, the controversy and his retirement. Why not a sentence, before Bradman is mentioned, that he had great success in county cricket for the rest of his career. Also, maybe worth mentioning that Larwood was personally successful in 1932-33, not just the tactic.
 * Although perhaps light on specific achievements, the lead does announce Larwood as perhaps "the finest bowler of his generation". That should signal his quality for readers. I have added that he "rapidly acquired a place among the country's leading bowlers", and that he continued to be successful after his Test career ended. I think his personal contribution to the 1932-33 tours is adequately covered by "With Larwood as its spearhead..." Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "in a match against Lancashire Seconds": Will a non-cricketer (or non-sports person) understand "Seconds"?
 * Well, the term "Second XI" has been used earlier in the sentence, so I don't honestly think there will be confusion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "and took the wicket of Vallance Jupp, an experienced former Test all-rounder": Nit-pick, but Jupp's Test career was not over in 1924.
 * That's pretty impressive! I've deleted "former".Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "the former England bowler Percy Fender was convinced": Perhaps a better description is needed of Fender. Former bowler does not make it seem that his opinion really matters. Perhaps identifying him as Surrey captain, or as a cricketer-journalist may be better?
 * Added a little to define FenderBrianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "has been characterised by commentators as "probably the most unpleasant [Test match] ever played"": Not sure what Swanton is up to here, but this is a direct quote from the Wisden report on the third Test.
 * Swanton attributes the wording to Wisden. I agree it 's better to cite directly to the original source, and have now done so. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * On Bodyline: I think that there may still be a little missing for those unfamiliar with the tactic. The prelude section mentions Bradman's apparent dislike for short bowling, then the leg theory tactics. Then the tour section mentions the application of the tactic, and Hobbs' comment on bumpers. But no-where does it mention the linking of the short-pitched attack (which also was not a new tactic) and the leg-side bowling.
 * I think, here, there is a danger of the article becoming too much focussed on the bodyline question generally, rather than on Larwood. The quotation from Larwood in the "Preamble" section links "sharp rising balls" (another term for short-pitched bowling) with the legside fielding trap; I'm inclined to think that further descriptions may confuse, rather than enlighten. I feel we may have to disagree on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a big point, but a greater number of bowlers than those listed here used Bodyline in 1933. I think one of the clinchers was when Ken Farnes used it in the University Match. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As above, I want to focus on Larwood, rather than providing further examples of bodyline practitioners. There is a WP bodyline article to which those interested in the wider practice can link. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your earlier review of the raticle and for the many helpful points which I have largely taken aboard. Also for your support and kind comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Due to lack of internet time, I did a talk page review rather than standard PR. A glance shows it to be fully worthy of the star.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, and earlier comments, provided notwithstanding your rationed internet time. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support – I was another of the reviewers who previously commented on the article's talk page, and I came away thinking that it fully deserved the star. Everything I pointed out has been addressed, and I'm confident that all of the FA criteria have been met. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely better free images are available for the infobox than one from a cigarette card?—indopug (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most unlikely. There are no pre-1923 images, so we are dependent on what was published in Australia during Larwood's tours there, in 1928-29 and 1932-33. Some very thorough searches have failed to come up with anything better. If you can suggest something, I'd be very pleased to consider it. There are plenty of good non-free images, naturally. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Support – a few minor queries, none of which affect my support for this comprehensive and balanced article.
 * Test cricketer
 * "series' decisive match at The Oval" – I think this is the first mention of the ground, and a blue link would be appropriate. The WP article on the Oval does not capitalise the definite article in the middle of a sentence (and nor do I, but de gustibus).
 * Link now in place (an earlier mention, with the link, got edited out). And you're right: "the Oval" is normal, and appears as such later in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Larwood did not join the MCC's weak team which toured South Africa in 1927–28" – did he refuse an invitation or wasn't he asked?
 * Prelude to bodyline
 * I'm not absolutely sure. South African tours were very much a B feature in those days (this one was captained by an army officer who'd never played in county cricket - he averaged 2.6 for the series), and many established Test players didn't tour. I suspect that it was a case of them not being expected to go, rather than their refusing, but the sources are not explicit. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "He headed the bowling averages in 1931 and 1932" – domestic, rather than international I imagine; might be worth specifing.
 * Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Australian tour, 1932–33
 * "In reply, MCC refuted the Australian Board's charges" – "repudiated", or "denied", or "rejected", but not refuted (i.e. "disproved", according to the OED)
 * Indeed - altered. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "the Australian prime minister… the governor of South Australia … and the British Dominions Secretary" – inconsistency of capitalisation here; seems hard on the prime minister who doesn't get any capitals when a mere secretary of state gets them.
 * It was only the prime minister of Australia Decapitalised, best Guardian style


 * Note 5: Not 1940: the Rawalpindi Express wasn't born until the 1970s. – Tim riley (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tim. I've no idea why I wrote 1940 - I must have been thinking of something else (quite a common fault these days) and have corrected the year. Other fixes also made. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Afterthoughts. In note 5 perhaps "upper 90s" rather than "late 90s", which might seem to refer to dates rather than speeds. And I am not a dab hand at the MoS, but I think block quotes, as in the delightful envoi, didn't oughter be in italics. – Tim riley (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Upper" is defintely better. As to the rhyme format, this was the suggestion of the estimable Wehwalt, whose recent FA William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896 also ends with an italicised pome. So a precedent exists; I'm inclined to leave it unless there is a furious objection. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Check alphabetization of Sources
 * Missing bibliographic info for Swanton
 * FN30: location?
 * Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
 * FN122: formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Image review - the article has seven images, six of which are freely licensed and one of which (the bodyline photo) is used under a fair use rationale, which I find valid given the prominence of the bodyline in the article (and life of Larwood). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks fo doing this - much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I can see no issues with this at all.  A great article. --   Cassianto Talk   00:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


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