Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick


 * 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

Marcus Trescothick
previous FAC

Please don't forget to see the previous FAC. Many of the comments there were addressed, and no opposes were outstanding. It's a comprehensive, well written article and I think deserves a shot at FA. Comments will be appreciated. Thankyou! SGGH speak! 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

....Anyone? SGGH speak! 14:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Perspicacite 21:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment


 * Personal life section should be at the bottom.The other FAC seemed to disagree with this, it's a point of contention, I will wait for further input
 * I thought that before, but it was 6 of one, half-dozen... Maybe. Is it critical? –MDCollins (talk)
 * It would be the way I would do it because it's a less notable topic. Buc 10:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a stange mixture throughout of say thing like "Impressive" or "poor" and just giving the raw stats. For exsample:
 * I think if you're going to say "century" and "half century" you should also give the exact score. Especially since it sometimes gives the exact score but doesn't mention that it's century or half century. When the specific number is given it doesn't need to also be said to be over 50 or 100, its obvious... but I see what you mean re: the other point. Will see what MDCollins says
 * I'm not sure of the problem. It isn't always necessary to put half-century (57) or 103. Too many numbers make it more difficult reading whereas a century fits into the prose easier. –MDCollins (talk)
 * I would say use both like say: "(half) century (xx)" Buc 10:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest giving the exact score for large centuries? Because 145 is much more significant than 101, so we could have 145-run century or something. However an 86-run half century doesn't really make sense because you are just saying "an 87 run fifty. Either leave it as half century or have the actual score, not both? SGGH speak! 11:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I too think that doing that every time would be excessive. In any case, the words "half-century"/"century" would be redundant, meaning somebody would come along later and say remove them and leave the numbers. This would break up the prose/article too much, and are there not enough numbers and figures anyway, without adding to it? Just saying half-century/century is common practice in news articles/match right-ups in the national press without needing the score in brackets as well. I think there is a good mix and variation here, and in any case the important (large scores) are given as exact figures. The difference between, for example a 57-run half-century, and a 62 run innings isn't enough to warrant mention other than both being 'half-centuries'. No? –MDCollins (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "his form in the West Indies was mixed" then later in the paragraph "267 runs including 130 in the 5th ODI and 82 from 57 balls" I think that it was mixed because it contained very poor and very good performances, those being the good ones
 * Agreed. –MDCollins (talk)


 * Career records and statistics section seems a bit excessive and a lot of it doesn't appear to be referenced. All the stats are ref'd that I can see, either in the coloumn headers or otherwise by the stats. The use of statistics is in keeping with other FA cricketer articles
 * One-day International Records, Man of the match awards and Man of the Series awards, don't appear to have a ref. The links under "record" one box right of each man of the match occurrence are refs to the scorecard on which the man of the match is recorded, as with Paul Collingwood SGGH speak! 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They appear to be External links. Buc 10:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As SGGH said, there is nothing more excessive than other cricket FAs, and it is all at the bottom after all of the prose in any case. –MDCollins (talk)

Buc 12:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments Buc, they are really useful! I have addressed those that I can. Hopefully MdCollins will come along and take care of the rest. Cheers SGGH speak! 14:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (I'll have a look later! –MDCollins (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

Thanks Buc, there are a couple I've commented on which are still outstanding, but most have been addressed if you are happy. Please comment further about the rest. –MDCollins (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem with ref #7. Buc (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have fixed this. SGGH speak! 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is some stuff about his style of play here and there, but I think there needs to be a section about it. Buc (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Article says, "Trescothick fell on 66, nine runs short of the highest score by an English opener on debut". WG Grace, Plum Warner, SC Griffith and Colin Milton all scored a century on debut for England as an opening batsman. See: Phanto282 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Comment: Ah, which part of "scored a century on debut for England as an opening batsman" didn't you understand? Phanto282 10:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Were they openers though? SGGH speak! 08:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, it seems I am blind! I went to the source after I read the names then got distracted. :) SGGH speak! 11:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This source, a news article, is where we got that information from. I suspect we will have to remove that information now. Will wait for MdCollins to see this. Thanks Phanto. SGGH speak! 11:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, a very interesting spot there Phanto. I wonder if the quotation should read "Trescothick fell on 66, nine runs short of the highest score by an English [left-handed] opener on debut"? No, Moxon was right-handed. Maybe it was a time thing, or the highest score for an England opener on debut since 1986. Oh well, it seems a bit dubious. Feel free to remove it. –MDCollins (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have done so SGGH speak! 14:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Under “Early domestic career”
 * Article has Trescothick promoted to Somerset opener in 1995; this happened in 1994
 * Removed. It's unnecessary anyway,


 * Eng U/19 v RSA 1995 was played in Eng, not SA
 * Done–MDCollins (talk)


 * He also played for Eng U/19 v WI in 1993, in Sri Lanka 1994, & v India in 1994
 * Done–MDCollins (talk)


 * Denis Compton award is given to the most promising player at each county club, not to the most promising young county player
 * Yes, thanks. Amended. –MDCollins (talk)


 * Duncan Fletcher might have been impressed with his innings v Glamorgan, but surely it is the panel of selectors who select him for England?
 * But Fletcher has his influences, and in this case I think it is well documented that the knock against Glamorgan secured his call up–MDCollins (talk)

Other “Trescothick did not score highly in the tournament, and England were knocked out at the quarter-final stage against South Africa. Despite these disappointing performances, Trescothick was named the PCA Player of the Year for his performances throughout 2000” The PCA award is for county performances, not international performances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanto282 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for that one, didn't realise that. Have clarified –MDCollins (talk)

Support The improvement in this article has been excellent. Well done to the editors for their persistence. Phanto282 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. As good as the other cricket biography featured articlse. -- !! ?? 14:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support--comprehensive and well written. Good work.-- Eva  b  d  19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There were more created by User:!! that he failed to correct, but I've done them now.–MDCollins (talk) ::I must say I am not fond of having "stress-related illness" written as such in the lead. To me it carries a connotation of disbelief in what is quoted and hence (maybe unintentionally) veers away from NPOV. I'd substitute with something like - what he reported as as stress-related illness or something similar.
 * Support Weak Oppose Comments  - beginning to look through ... there are some real flow issues with the prose, and some odd words - a little vernacular in places which I am trying to fix or highlight - cheers, Casliber (talk ·''' contribs) 08:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a direct quote, rather than one of emphasis, and just makes it clear that only Trescothick knows exactly what it was, so we can't be more specific than what the references say...–MDCollins (talk)
 * Ok, on second thoughts I concede it is/was a difficult topic to do anything other than comment as such, yet is important enough to go in lead but tricky to do other than what's been done.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * displaying a calm temperament.. - eeww. I'd change it but I can't think of an alternative at the moment.


 * Can't see what's wrong with it, would you elaborate?–MDCollins (talk)
 * Just sounds odd - temperament means characterological profile, for a lifetime not an innings, maybe I'd use composure or composed or something similar.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * when seemingly well set - ditto. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * removed seemingly. "well set" is now in quotation marks, as it is in the source.


 * opportunity to to shine -too colloquial -maybe "excel" is better but have a think on't.


 * changed.


 * highly satisfactory tournament - I normally like understatement but this sounds odd...


 * Yeah, I just read through the article again and removed that anyway, so agreed. It's gone. –MDCollins (talk)

OK, I have tweaked or suggested above what needs doing. Will check in later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The redlinks were my fault; now fixed. As for the rest, the more people that read and copyedit, the better :) -- !! ?? 22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Casliber. I've addressed your points, and several other minor issues if you'd care to take another look. –MDCollins (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Much improved; a few things—
 * 40 then 16.00 – wouldn't you give consistent numbers of decimal places? Occurs elsewhere too.
 * That particular example is "over 40.... then 16.00" so there its unnecessary to say "over 40.00", SGGH speak! 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone and put exact (2 decimal place) averages in instead of the rough "over 40" etc. I think I've got them all. –MDCollins (talk)
 * May-June: see MOS on en dashes.
 * I think I have put an en-dash there now. Not sure. SGGH speak! 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is fine! –MDCollins (talk)
 * "Half-centuries"—perhaps no hyphen. Tony   (talk)  12:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps not always a good idea to point to other FAs, but Paul Collingwood and Adam Gilchrist (many times in the latter) put the hyphen in half-century. Based on this I would be inclined to keep. SGGH speak! 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cricinfo tends to use the hyphenated form, and both seem relatively prelevant. I think this may be a personal preference, so unnecessary to change. Unless, of course, you can find a source to suggest that it is grammatically incorrect.–MDCollins (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Seems quite well done. It mentions nothing regarding Flectchers comments in his autobiography, might be worth a look? Twenty Years 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.