Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/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 Karanacs 15:59, 1 September 2009.

Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

 * Nominator(s):  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Another of the Invincibles Advert. Neil Harvey was the youngest member of the team and his century in the Headingley Test stopped the English attack, which had seized the initiative. Australia recovered to restore parity in the first innigns and finished off a the match with a world record. He was also known for his dazzling fielding  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment As per CI, Miller hit two sixes in the first inns at Leeds. As per the article : "with Miller taking the lead. He hoisted off spinner Jim Laker's first ball over square leg for six." and "Miller then lifted Laker for a six over long off, and another over long on from Yardley to reach 54". Tintin 08:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Add - the hits off Yardley were two fours, as per Arlott.
 * Ok, Fingo is probably wrong then in this case. What is Arlott's book??  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

*Comment2 "Harvey’s knock had taken 177 minutes and included 14 fours." - 188/17 as per CI, please cross check. Tintin 08:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Add - the stands with Miller and Loxton were of 90 & 95 minutes. So 188 is the more sensible number. Tintin 08:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Misread the thing. 177 seems to be the time taken to reach 100.
 * I'll make it clearer.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment3 Did Bradman deliberately let Harvey hit the winning boundary ? Vaguely remember seeing something like that somewhere. That would be worth a mention because of what happened at Oval. Tintin 08:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Harvey just jokes in interviews that he is responsible for 99.94 and quips that he should have not scored and yielded.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') 03:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – This is the second nom by YM in little more than 24 hours. That doesn't seem in keeping with the spirit of the FAC instructions, if not the exact letter.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I waited for two supports. Last year I waited for one and didn't get yelled at.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 02:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — Very comprehensive and fully MOS-compliant article as usual from YellowMonkey.--Grahame (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments –
 * Early tour: "so Australia were effectively six wickets down and faced its first loss to an English county since 1912." Tense conflict with "were" and "its". I'd change the second because the remainder of the article uses plural.
 * "including two leaping catches in the second innings with his hands above his heads." Harvey had two heads? :-)
 * Fourth Test: "Harvey was called into the team for the Fourth Test at Headingley at the expense of the Barnes." One "the" too many.
 * "This allowed Australia to seize the initiative, with Harvey joined the counterattack during the next over". Last part is off.
 * "Loxton came in to join Harvey at 4/189, who continued to attack...". Might be better if "at 4/189" was moved to the start of the sentence, placing Harvey before "who".
 * Fifth Test: the previous The Oval link is only a few paragraphs above, meaning this one can safely be removed.
 * Later matches: "part of a collapse in which Australia lose their last seven wickets for 89 to end at 361." "lose" → "lost" to ensure past tense.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 02:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks again  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support – Was a fine article to begin with, and is even better now that the few prose fixes have been made.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 01:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support – Read the other day and again looks good.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 11:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.