Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jonathan Agnew/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 21 December 2011.

Jonathan Agnew

 * Nominators: Dweller and The Rambling Man

Joint nom with TRM.

Well, we've been working with this article now for some time and present Aggers to the community for feedback. Images have been checked out and Casliber kindly did a copyedit. As ever, we're very happy to take on board constructive criticism - TRM even understands citation formatting. Dweller (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Transcluded. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment Oppose : Sorry, the article is not ready. It has has no formal review before coming here; FAC is not the place to be identifying and sorting out basic prose problems. Nevertheless I have done so, for the lead and "Early years" section:-
 * Lead


 * The "Spiro" nickname is unexplained, here or elsewhere.
 * This was discussed on the article talk. While I can speculate as to its origins, no RS that I've seen explains it, probably because they consider it blindingly obvious. So for me to explain it would be OR. I could, therefore, remove it, but I could be opposed for lack of comprehensiveness. It's a catch 22 and this way is definitely the better one. --Dweller (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And its existence is backed up by at least one reliable source, so I don't think I see a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that you don't actually give this source. I'm not doubting he was called "Spiro"; my concern is that Spiro Agnew lost office nearly 40 years ago and dropped out of public view. I doubt whether any of your readers under 50 or so will have the slightest idea as to the origin of the nickname. It would be good if we could enlighten them, though if the information is lacking in the sources, I suppose we can't. Finally, are his nicknames so significant as to deserve mention in the very first paragraph of the lead?
 * Well, Aggers is very significant, that's why Aggers redirects to this article. Secondly, the lead has no citations, but the infobox has a "source" which references Spiro as his nickname.  That should suffice. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "He was second and third-leading wicket-taker" Lose the first hyphen
 * Done, thanks --Dweller (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "including achieving..." Never have two -ings together (especially after one earlier in the sentence)
 * Seems like consistency of participles, but as you prefer, I've amended. I think it's worse for the change though. --Dweller (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have some notable guidance that says you should "never have two -ings together"? I agree it's sub-optimal but is it in our MOS?  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a personal view about avoiding the clunk of repeated -ings in high quality prose. Apart from that, it is still not clear from the wording whether the achievement of 100 wickets in a season refers to one or both of the seasons in question. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Think the "ings" has been solved and I've clarified what year the 100/season occurred. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "...one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year by Wisden Cricketers' Almanack in 1988." I'd suggest "...one of the Cricketers of the Year by Wisden Cricketers' Almanack in 1988" to reduce the repetition.
 * Good spot, thanks --Dweller (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Repetition of "notably" in first two lines of the third paragraph.
 * Ugh, it was worse than that. Thanks. Heftily reworked. --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Amusing though it was, should the "leg-over" incident be given such prominence in the lead? How important is it in the context of Agnew's entire career?
 * Extremely. It's given him a prominence far beyond the normal cricket audience. For a cricket commentary to be named best of all time in the UK, beating the iconic moment of England winning the 1966 football World Cup speaks volumes. --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Words fail me if this incident is considered "the greatest sporting commentary ever", but if that's the case, fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it certainly tickles the funny bone. Besides "they think it's all over" or "your boys took one hell of a beating", not sure I can recall anything quite so significant in the world of broadcast, and certainly not in audio-only broadcast. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The appeal to a wider audience is one (good) argument, but I think there is another reason this commentary incident is considered so significant by Test Match Special aficionados -- Aggers effectively picked up the baton from Brian Johnston ("Johnners"), who had been a cricket commentator for decades and was really at the centre of the team for a generation of listeners, especially following the retirement of John Arlott. He also represented traditions of British radio presentation dating back to the post-war era. The incident, with its puerile humour, had further resonance with traditions of British comedy, and the on-air chemistry of Agnew and Johnston established the former as the true standard bearer for TMS into the future. FrankP (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Early years


 * "growing", "becoming", "carrying", "listening" - all in one sentence
 * I simply don't understand this criticism --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above, it's a question of best style per FAC criterion 1a - it is not grammaticaally at fault, but it reads in heavy footfalls, and could be phrased more smoothly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have attempted to address this by use of semi-colon and rephrase. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Avoidable repetition: "...Test Match Special. Test Match Special..."
 * Thanks, nuked. --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "one that he believes to be a common one" → "one that he believes to be common"
 * Dealt with above. --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In the first sentence of the second paragraph the terminal "too" is unnecessary
 * I disagree. Plenty of people love the radio coverage and never play the game. --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is unnecessary in the sentence as you have written it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will disagree with Dweller here, plus not keen on the comma, so have removed. If Dweller wishes to send me an email-bomb, I'll take it.  Hopefully resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No bombs needed. As always, happy to go with consensus. --Dweller (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "including the bowling action" - "the bowling action" sounds as if there is only one.
 * It's a fair point, but it's how the term is used in my experience. (IIRC, it's actually what Aggers says in the book!) Any suggestions? Maybe "including how to bowl" - it's less elegant though. --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this to you. Other options might be "the basic action of bowling", or "the mechanics of bowling". I just feel that "the" bowling action should be avoided. I missed the Mary Duggan bit in my previous look-through; whose first cousin is she? She was 35 years older than Aggers.
 * Have tried to address the off spin issue by a reword. The Duggan bit has just been added (by neither me nor Dweller) so we'll need to look at that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was added by User:Johnlp from a paper source to which I have no access. We can either ask him to chip in or remove it (seems relatively trivial to me, but assuming the reference is sound, I'm not sure what else to add here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cricketers' Who's Who tends to be written by the cricketers themselves, and "first cousin" is what it says in the 1991 edition. If you go back through The Times back issues, you find Agnew's grandmother (father's mother) was a Miss Mona Duggan. Suspect that makes Mary Duggan a first cousin once removed. You can get a reasonably complete genealogy of Agnew from Times birth, death and marriage notices if you want. Johnlp (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "within a couple of years" is too casual, informal. The punctuation in this sentence also needs attention.
 * "a couple of years" is how Agnew describes it. I could change it, but am caught between making it OR-ingly too specific or using an alternative that's equally vague, which seems pointless. I could also make it a direct quote, but it seems silly. Suggestions welcome. --Dweller (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "couple of years" does not sound like an encyclopaedic expression, but this isn't a major point. Change it if you can think of something better.
 * Per the fact they're his own words, quote marks added, and (in my mind) nugatory comma removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "For secondary school, Agnew attended Uppingham School,[3] and, from the age of 16, he also developed his skills as a right-arm fast bowler out of school hours at Alf Gover's cricket school in Surrey." Several issues here. First, the opening "For secondary school" is clumsy. Secondly, the word "also" is inappropriate. Thirdly, a comma is required after "fast bowler". You could consider splitting the sentence.
 * First point taken. The "also" is needed to help the reader understand that he attended both institutions simultaneously. I thought about splitting it, but it would make for two very choppy sentences. --Dweller (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "also" is not needed, since you specify where he developed his bowling skills. And the punctuation still needs attention. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The quotation beginning "For an eighteen-year-old bowler..." has nothing to do with Agnew's memory of Holding's bowling in 1976 (when Agnew was 16, not 18).
 * Yes, that's tricky. It's to do with his school career generally, though. It needs to go after joining Gover's institution, which, in turn, needs to be after Uppingham. However, it goes before the bit that explains how he came into county cricket. As such, it's in the right place. Would it help if the quote were truncated to begin "I was unusually..."? --Dweller (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Location is not the issue. The problem is that the quote is at odds with the statement introducing it: "That summer, he saw fast bowler Michael Holding take 14 wickets in the 1976 Oval Test match, a "devastating" performance of pace bowling, which made an impact on Agnew, sufficient that he recalled it more than 30 years later." This leads one to expect some such recall in the quote, and it's not there. I would alter the introductory wording to read "...a performance of pace bowling which made a lasting impact on Agnew. More than 30 years later he wrote of his schooldays bowling:-" I would leave the quote as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent stuff. I've implemented it, although not so sure about "schooldays bowling". I'm not even sure of the elegance of what I've replaced it with... I'll ponder on it a little. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not even glanced at the remainder of the prose, but I assume that it is in similar need of polishing. The article should in my view be withdrawn, pending review and in particular a top-to-bottom copyedit. I am quite a fan of cricket-related articles, and will generally give of my help when asked, but I can't support premature nominations such as this one. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What kind of 'formal review' would you like? It had a copyedit from a third party copyeditor. Happy to respond on any prose issues. I agree with most of the points raised above and will address. NB A lot of your concerns stem from the lead, which as usual was the last piece of the jigsaw and hasn't been as well thumbed. --Dweller (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of what I would like but what the article needs, to bring it up to FA standard. I don't think the copyedit was meticulous enough. If the article was at Peer review I would review it specifically against the Featured Article Criteria; this would take a couple of weeks, but it would be thorough. I can't do a peer review within the timescale of an FAC, and anyway, this isn't the right forum for that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We've used PR in the past for our FAs, but found it was even more sparsely 'attended' than FAC. I know this forum isn't the right one for copyediting, which is why I requested a third party copyedit before coming here. --Dweller (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, with a reasonably niche subject matter, PR is relatively useless. In any case, I think we've addressed most of your comments, and we'd surely appreciate further.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have addressed my points, and in response I have struck my oppose. However, I only examined a fraction of the text; the main issue to me is the unprepared state of the article. I can't give it the level of review it requires at this FAC, but should it be archived I'd be more than happy to give it full attention at PR. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping improve it considerably already. Your gesture and offer are also deeply appreciated. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: There has been considerable further discussion on the article's talk page (effectively a peer review), as a result of which the article has been significantly amended. The disussions are ongoing as of now. Link here Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Far from the worst article I've seen at FAC, but I can see places that are quite rough, as Brian suggests. I won't go so far as to suggest a quick withdrawal, but another copy-edit would certainly be beneficial. Here are some examples of issues:
 * Minor, but Wisden Cricketers' Almanack should be italicized in the lead as a printed publication.
 * Early years: Reference 3 is used twice in the opening sentence of this section. As long as the DOB is covered in the cite, I see no reason why the doubling-up is necessary. One cite at the end of the sentence should cover all of it.
 * "as he wanted his son to develop into bowler like him." Would read better with "a" before "bowler", assuming they use that phrasing in cricket.
 * County cricketer: the hyphen after "Sri Lanka touring team" should be some form of dash per the MoS.
 * Test cricketer: "He had the perfect start, playing in the warm-up game against Cambridge University and achieving figures of 8–47 from 20.4 overs and found himself included in the first team for the County Championship matches that followed." There's a lot going on in this sentence, which is worsened by having only one comma break. Another would be useful before "and found himself included", or the County Championship part could be made into its own sentence. Either way would be better than the current structure.
 * "As if poor performance and a muscle injury that limited him to bowling a single over on the last day, were not enough". Not sure if this is an encylopedic enough form of phrasing this bit. Seems too informal and sports magazine profile-like to me.
 * "Cowdrey and Ellison had both struggled with the ball, both averaging more than 70." The two "both"s are a pretty clear redundancy. I'd get rid of the first one, as it seems the more expendable of the two.
 * You guys don't need to link Norman Cowans twice in a paragraph. Same goes for Neil Foster.
 * This is probably just my lack of cricket knowledge again, but what does "ring the changes" mean?
 * In this section and the next one, 8 of 9 sentences begin with Agnew. Some more variation would be nice, if possible. Also, every sentence in the personal life section starts with Agnew.
 * Broadcasting controversies: England and Wales Cricket Board doesn't need to be linked twice here.
 * The Lily Allen quote causes a situation I've never seen before at FAC. Agnew's Twitter handle (I think) is given, but that's the only description of who he is. I have no knowledge of whether the MoS has any advice on how to handle quotes with Twitter handles. What I would suggest is to make clear that this was Agnew's Twitter handle (or name, or whatever it's called).
 * "Leg over" incident: Again minor, but Match doesn't need capitalization in the first sentence.
 * Ref17 could use a space between the p. and number, for consistency with the other short cites. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 18:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Giants, thanks for that, done all bar "8 of 9 sentences begin with Agnew" and the Twitter thing. Will leave Dweller to think about those two unless I get back here before him!  By the way, ring the changes is just "making changes"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done the Twitter thing, hopefully in a non-contentious manner. It actually makes it more comprehensible, never mind MOS, so it's a good change IMHO. I've de-Agnewed a bit already and will do some more. It's one of the things I try to keep a lid on while editing, but this must have slipped through somehow. Thanks for all the comments. --Dweller (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I've read the article through once and I think it is quite an impressive piece of work considering that there are not too many sources available on Agnew. I won't comment on prose at the moment as others are doing that. I've a few content related queries for the moment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the cricket section is a little light. I appreciate that this article probably deliberately avoids the whole "In the XXXX season he took XX wickets at an average of XXXX" and I think that approach is fine. But I don't think it comes across that he had a substantial and respected cricket career as a county cricketer. A 10+ year county career is covered in two sections totalling six paragraphs, while his brief international career gets an equal number of paragraphs in one section. I don't think an extensive run-down of his stats or a match-by-match account is required at all, but I think this aspect needs more.
 * Hi. Interesting. As a cricket fan, rather than a media fan, this is the part that most interested me, and I've been resisting temptation to make this much larger. However, the facts are as follows: Agnew's playing career really lasted c.11 years, while his media career has so far been 24 years. While he's notable by our standards for both careers, he has achieved far more public recognition for his broadcasting than his 'very good county pro, bit-part international' career. As such, I think we have the balance pretty much right. If we have omitted things, that's fine, and I notice you mention things below we should address, but I'll need to disagree with you on this one. I'm happy to go with it if others persuade me though. TRM, a view? Other WP:CRIC members? --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One example of this is the fact he took 100 wickets in 1987. It is given a bit of a throw-away comment, but this was a big deal and exceptionally rare for anyone at the time. Even more so for an England-qualified bowler and led to plenty of recall-Aggers speculation that came to nothing.
 * I think you're right that the 100 wickets feat could do with a little expansion - it's become an amazing achievement since the county programme was cut down. The speculation that came to nothing is less encyclopedic, IMHO. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As much as everyone loves Aggers, parts of the article are a little too much sweetness and light. Any controversies seem to be ignored a little. For example, I think the dirt-in-pocket affair is quite big, but it gets just a few words. Firstly, the general reader will have no idea what this means or what the context was. Secondly, I seem to recall that Agnew was quite vociferous at the time and demanded that Atherton resign. And I think it was the first time Agnew was seen as a journalist rather than a cuddly TMS figure. Cricinfo has a good article about the affair here which covers Agnew's role quite well. It would be interesting to know what Agnew and Atherton later said about it.
 * Good stuff - I'll look into this. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't mention much about his role as chief cricket correspondent at the BBC. Apart from the Atherton incident, I seem to remember him being quite combative a few times in this role. Also, what about outside opinions of his effectiveness? Does anyone "review" him as a journalist, apart from the awards he won? For example, Wisden usually do a media review each year. Has this ever mentioned him?
 * We have him in combative mood a few times, but usually in his TMS role. Dunno about reviews, but I'll peruse some Wisdens tonight if I can. Dirt in pockets as mentioned above would be a good inclusion. The thing is, his role as BBC cricket correspondent does have a significant overlap with TMS, as the Test coverage is what usually catches the eye. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One incident I think worth mentioning is when he threw Phil DeFreitas' cricket bag over the dressing room balcony in 1987 after DeFreitas poured salt over his lunch. Although it was more to do with what DeFreitas was doing at the time, it shows a different side to Agnew and was quite a major incident at the time. This is mentioned in the 1988 Wisden (I can get hold of a copy if you need the reference), and I have a very vague memory of Agnew coming under some criticism for dressing room stuff at some stage (although I could have dreamed it).
 * I remember this happening, but never knew it was Aggers. I'll look into it. If you can scan the Wisden page/s and email me or upload somewhere (I don't have 1988) I'd be grateful. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is not too much apart from Agnew's own views on why he was not selected by England. I think in this case, there is a real danger in relying only on his own writing. For example, the Cricketer of the Year citation mentions one reason being a perception that he was injury-prone (and admits that he was at first: this does not really come across in the article, but see below). Has anyone else said why he wasn't picked? Gower, for example. And Cricinfo has a few parts which effectively criticise the selectors for not choosing him, for example here and his profile page.
 * I'll look at this. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do think the article relies on Agnew's writings too much. For example, "when I slowed down a bit, learned how to swing the ball" comes in Agnew's words when it may be better coming from a neutral source. His Cricinfo profile says the same thing, more or less.
 * I think it says masses about his personality that he says this. Happy to look at each quote in turn. I already pruned a load of quotes, based on the talk page feedback from reviewers and the copyeditor. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are too many quotations for my taste, which I do not think add to the article. However, you may disagree and that is fine.
 * As above. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Agnew's career did not initially live up to his early promise. In his first six seasons as a first-class cricketer, his biggest haul of wickets was 31 in 1980, hampered by a mixture of injuries, poor form and omission from the Leicestershire side." When I was looking to see what the article said about his injuries, I noticed this sentence was referenced to his seasonal bowling averages. This only supports the number of wickets he took, and does not really cover his promise, injuries or omission. I think another ref is needed in addition.
 * I'll look at this. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for these being slightly random and disorganised comments! I plan to have another look in a day or two once the prose concerns have been discussed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise - excellent feedback, thank you --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some excellent comments above. My time tonight is limited - I'll get stuck in tomorrow and, erm, ring the changes in the article. :-) --Dweller (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The "leg over" incident is in the lead? I see that Brianboulton commented on this. According to Dweller, this is "extremely [important in the context of Agnew's career]"? "It's given him a prominence far beyond the normal cricket audience"? There is no justification for either of those statements. The fact that Radio 5 listeners voted it the "greatest sporting commentary ever" speaks volumes indeed: not about commentary, but about the nature of the voters. In my opinion, this statement should not be in the lead section (although it should be present later on in the article). Disclaimer: I enjoy listening to the cricket commentary on Radio 5 Live Sports Extra. Aggers and Blowers are excellent commentators. For those who suspect "sense of humour failure", I was actually listening when Aggers and Vaughan were discussing the difficulty with rubbers, and I found it amusing at the time. Axl ¤  [Talk]  13:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In the absence of any further explanation from Dweller or The Rambling Man, I am opposing over this matter. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  14:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. I've not had the solid time this week to devote to FAC stuff. I'll take a look next week. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, real life has calmed down a little and I have some time for this. Can I just be clear - is your oppose entirely based on the leg-over being mentioned in the lead? --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have read some of the rest of the article, but not carefully enough to formally assess it against the FA standard. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This may be a bold ask, but we'll work on understanding if there's a general "out-of-cricket" acceptance that this a notable enough broadcasting moment to feature in the lead (and, of course, go with consensus and remove if indeed that's the case), if you would be generous enough to look at some of the rest of the article, that would be very much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A bold ask indeed. :-) Okay, I'll take a closer look at the article. However I think that it's only fair to warn you that I tend to be a harsh reviewer. ;-) Axl  ¤  [Talk]  00:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Harsh is good! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Per this request by Dweller on my talk page, I am adding comments to the article's talk page. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  15:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FN 31: publisher?
 * Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FN 55: access date?
 * Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FN 63: author? Should be italicised
 * Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't need retrieval dates for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
 * Not sure what harm it does. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Will look for alternatives. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you mention when the commentary box stuff up was fixed in SL?  Aaroncrick  TALK 08:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could do - just seems excessive detail. The part of the story that's relevant to Aggers is when he was commentating from the fort. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


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