Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugh Trumble


 * 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 00:51, 10 May 2008.

Hugh Trumble
Self-nomination – I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I feel it meets the featured article criteria. The article is comprehensive, fully referenced, neutral and stable. I have tried to take on board criticism about other cricket biographies I have listed here including minimising jargon and making the article accessible to all readers, not just cricket enthusiasts. The article has been peer reviewed and is now listed here for your comment. Mattinbgn\talk 10:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

{{hidden|contentstyle=border:1px solid blue; |headerstyle=color:white; background:#AAAAFF; |header= Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД  {{sub|talk}} 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)|content=
 * Comment: Image:HughTrumbleOlder.jpg, Image:1902AusTeam.jpg, Image:TrumbleCard.jpg and Image:HughTrumble1907.jpg all need verifiable sources per WP:IUP. "Transferred from en.wikipedia" with only a link to the main page is not acceptable; reference to the external source must be retained when transferring images to the Commons.  ЭLСОВВОLД  {{sub|talk}} 17:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All information from the original upload of the images to en.wiki was kept when they were transferred to Commons. You can see the original upload information in the Original upload log underneath the image. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mop holders can see the deleted pages, perhaps, but not the general populace. ЭLСОВВОLД  {{sub|talk}} 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be seen if you follow the image through to Commons; i.e. Commons:Image:HughTrumbleOlder.jpg and scroll down. That is all the information that is available.  If that is not acceptable, then perhaps the images should be tagged for deletion as unsourced.  At the risk of seeing other Featured Articles sent to FAR, Clem Hill and Archie Jackson have PD images with the same (lack of) sourcing information. -- Mattinbgn\talk
 * If that's all that's there and all information has indeed been retained, the implication is that they were uploaded without source information. We need to know where they came from (e.g. a URL, "user X scanned this from Y", etc.); I don't see any such source information?  ЭLСОВВОLД  {{sub|talk}} 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant above. All the information I have is there, there is nothing else. I didn't originally upload them (the original uploaders can be seen in the original upload log) and have no idea where they came from.  They were available on en.wiki and I used CH{{sup|2}} to move them to Commons as they were tagged as in the public domain.  If the sourcing is unacceptable, then perhaps they should be tagged for deletion as unsourced. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and I certainly didn't mean to imply you'd done anything wrong. Regardless of their past, the images don't have sources now and that is a problem. The threshold for inclusion at Wiki is verifiability, after all, so deletion may indeed need to happen.  Before that extreme, however, {{user|Phanto282}}, the original uploader for three of the four, appears to still be an active editor.  Perhaps a query on his/her talk page would be best before taking the deletion route?  ЭLСОВВОLД  {{sub|talk}} 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

{restarting) I don't want the images deleted or removed but I was attempting to clarify if the lack of source information is grounds for deletion or if it just meant they could not be used in this article. Deletion, of course, would need to take place under Wikicommons policies, guidelines and procedures.  I have taken your advice and asked the uploading editor to assist. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:HughTrumbleOlder.jpg now has a source. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The uploading editor (who incidentally does a great job in finding old images for use in WP:CRICKET) seems to be away from Wikipedia for a while. I have found what I believe to be the sources of two of the images here and here.  Of course I don't know for sure that these are the sources but it seems to me very likely.  Can I amend the sourcing of those images or do I need to upload them again? -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with amending the sources. ЭLСОВВОLД  {{sub|talk}} 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the sources have now been amended. At this stage I have been unable to find the source for the cigarette card image.  I suspect it comes from an online auction catalogue somewhere but I can't seem to track it down.  I will remove the image for now until I hear from the original uploader, I trust that would mean your concerns on images are satisfied. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

}}
 * Comment Is there a particular reason why the French spelling of debut is used? Budding Journalist 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding like a sheep merely following orders from a dumb program, it is the suggested spelling by my browser (Firefox) using an Australian English spellchecking add-on. Happy to change if necessary. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, interesting. I just checked my Microsoft Word spell-checker (American English) by typing "debutt" and its first suggestion was début as well. ::shrug:: I must say, I hardly ever see début used anymore, but I asked out of curiosity more than anything. :) Budding Journalist 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen this issue discussed before at FAC and FLC. My own position on it is that it doesn't matter, so long as it's consistently applied. It's hardly obscurist. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Easier to change to "debut" if that is less distracting -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments (forgive my typing, I'm on the road with an unfamiliar laptop keyboard)
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://cricketarchive.com/index.html
 * I'm on the road again, and the link checker tool doesn't like this hotel's ISP, I am getting a LOT of timeout errors, which I suspect are related to the hotel ISP. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * CricketArchive is a site dedicated to cricket statistics and records. One of its general editors is Philip Bailey who has been described as taking "this abtruse branch of science to levels that in other fields win Nobel Prizes" (Wisden'' 2004, p.9)  by Matthew Engel, the editor of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack. For the purposes that it is used for here&mdash;scorecards and averages&mdash;it is as reliable as any other published source on the topic. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll concur with that - it's pretty damn reliable and highly regarded by the cricket WikiProject. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can probably live with that statement on reliablity, but going to leave it out for others to see and decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Other Dweller comments "unstruck":


 * "6 wickets" should be six, later "3 wickets" etc. Please fix all per MOSNUM
 * ''I don't want to throw this FAC discussion off-track by discussing the ins and outs of MOSNUM but I have a real problem with the guidelines as they apply to sporting scores. For example, how should the following sentence be written: "'Trumble took 6 wickets for 59 runs, including a 9 over spell of 5 wickets for 10 runs'" Following MOSNUM, this should be "Trumble took six wickets for 59 runs, including a nine over spell of five wickets for 10 runs".  The mix of numerals and words appears strange to me.  If the exception&mdash;"Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs)"&mdash;was allowed in this case, then this sentence would be inconsistent with the remainder of the article.  I would suggest that consistency within an entire article is preferable and that the use of numerals be allowed in the context of sports scores such as runs, wickets, goals, points etc.  The opinion of MOS gurus on this point would be welcome and I am happy to take this discussion elsewhere if others feel it worthwhile. Of course, if the consensus is otherwise, I am happy to change. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment is reasonable. Happy to let this go, but leaving it unstruck in case anyone objects forcefully. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did Trumble's improving batting returns lead to promotion up the order? Also, the reader's left to discern this improvement, rather than having it spelled out, which is a weakness
 * No doubt that it did, but I can't find a source to state that specifically. I agree that this is a weakness, but spelling this out would require either OR such as an assertion that "His improved batting saw him promoted in the batting order" or weasel words along the lines of "He was promoted in the batting order, most likely as a result of his improved batting."  Your thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you can note his promotion in the order, referenced to scorecard when it happened, and refer to improved performances using StatsGuru? I don't think using StatsGuru really breaks the spirit of OR. NB I note that the statistical summary section barely mentions his batting. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Switch to Support Great work and repeated apologies for being so pedantic. I am not insistent on the remaining issues about batting prowess, but I suspect knowing you that you'll make some alterations nonetheless. Looking forward to seeing that little star in the top rh corner. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I will have a bash at the batting this evening. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

With all my concerns addressed, I'm giving the article my Support. Giants2008 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for support and assistance -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I do lend my support, although I do make a couple of points that I'm sure will be quickly sorted.
 * "Off the field, Trumble worked for a bank" if it is the national bank of australasia, then why not put that in the lead?
 * Good Idea -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For those of us with large screens, there is a large gap after the "off the field section" which is a bit unsightly
 * The space is to stop the photograph in that section bunching with the foootnotes. I could force a smaller image but that would mean overriding user preferences for image sizing. I am happy to consider other options -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1902 australian tour photo is a little small, hard to pick out detail
 * I agree, but the image as uploaded is a small one. I could set a larger size but once again this would override user preferences on image sizes and my understanding is that this is discouraged. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I have set the image to a fixed width of 250px as the lesser of two evils. I hope this does not inconvenience those users with other preferences. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * the image captions could be a bit more expanatory in places, rather than just stating what the image is of.
 * I have expanded the captions somewhat. I hope that is what you are after. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if some of those have been listed above. Good article SGGH speak! 16:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your support and suggestions. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I created Robert Trumble to fix a redlink SGGH speak! 08:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, what a great stub! -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support JH (talk page) 17:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Is nice ... Phanto282 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.