Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ray Lindwall 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 SandyGeorgia 21:41, 24 September 2010.

Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

 * Nominator(s):  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lindwall as the Invincibles main bowler and he was known for his classical arm action and ability to swing the ball. He completely wrecked England in the Second and Fifth Tests, and Wisden said that "by whatever standard he is judged", Lindwall must "be placed permanently in the gallery of great fast bowlers".  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * image review One suitably licensed chart  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - dab link to Tony Pawson, no dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—2c is beautiful. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have picked something up from earlier reviews then :)  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Your nominations are improving, I must say: nice work! Any nominations for featured topic in the offing?
 * Support Tony   (talk)  12:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Refactored per ; it would be helpful if nominators made sure their FACs followed FAC instructions. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just been labelled a hyphen fascist ... oh well. But here, you might consider not using the first hyphen: "equal-leading wicket-taker".
 * Ok but can you explain the rationale so I know how to apply it  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's already a hyphenated duo next to it, so we know "leading" isn't part of that next compound item. Is "equal leading" ambiguous? It's no big deal, though. Tony   (talk)  12:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do be careful with "as", a poorly engineered word in English: "Bradman used Lindwall sparingly, taking a match total of 3/45 from 25 overs as Surrey were defeated by an innings." Does it mean "because" or "while"? I wouldn't use "as" at all in such contexts. "Since", "because" where there's causality.
 * I don't believe I have done anything unconventional (at least not compared to the news eg "Matt Giteau scored all the points as Australia won 17–0" and so forth (coreelation I guess, but not causality)  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I still can't tell whether you mean "since" or "while". Did he take the the total when Surrey were defeated? If so, "when" would be unambiguous. Otherwise, I wonder whether he took it because they were defeated. Tony   (talk)  12:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never noticed the "as" issue before, but that might be because I'm used to sportswriting that uses it often. What I can say is that if I saw "since" or "because" in this context, I would automatically comment negatively on it. "While" is a touch better, but I think the best fix possible would be something like the following: "taking a match total of 3/45 from 25 overs in an innings defeat of Surrey." That is about the clearest way possible to say it without getting too wordy.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 03:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ellipsis points: spaced on both sides. The MoS says it all: ""crumpled completely...in as depressing a batting performance as the tour knew".
 * Watch those repeated "then"s: "the Australian captain then apologised to Edrich.[48] Lindwall then bounced Washbrook ...". And it seems an awkward place for a para break; better after ref-tag 50? Tony   (talk)  04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done the rest, and "that"s as well. As far as FT goes, it already passed the 33% criteria in December 2009 and passed the 50%+1 in time for the raised bar. But as far as improving goes, this was copyedited 16 months ago (before Meckiff) and has been in my FAC queue since then :(  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
 * "The pair played a key role in subduing England's leading batsmen, Len Hutton and Denis Compton..." OK, Hutton fair enough (unfortunately!) but I'm not sure I'd count DSC as subdued in the series... Maybe rephrase a touch?
 * Yes not phrased well  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure about "scalps" for wickets. Might raise a few eyebrows to those unfamiliar with cricket!
 * And another take/took in the sentence rewroded  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Lindwall was not no-balled in the first match at Worcester, and so it remained for the rest of the tour." Does this mean he was not no-balled at all on the tour? It sounds a bit clunky.
 * For the Notts match, is it worth making the link of Larwood, Notts and Bodyline (and even that Lindwall modelled his action on Larwood) to give context to Fingo's comment?
 * ''Done


 * "searing yorker": Says who?
 * First test: It says Harvey being sub gave Aus an advantage. Maybe clarify as the loss of Lindwall's bowling outweighed any fielding gain, given England's relative success in the 2nd innings.
 * "who was playing across the line": Maybe add "of the ball".
 * "Hutton and Washbrook took the score to 42—England's highest partnership of the series" Even England weren't that bad! And I don't think it was their best opening stand either. Without checking, I thought they put on 100 in each innings as Leeds?
 * Should have been to this date  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at the rest shortly, but looks good overall. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does opinion of Hutton as best batsman need its own ref?
 * "...the second highest by any Australian team in England.[10][39] Lindwall was not able to take advantage of this, as the tourists declared before he had scored." What was Lindwall taking advantage of?
 * "believed the England selectors had errer..." Erred?
 * Clarified the rest  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Has the jargon been explained since the GAN review?  Aaroncrick  TALK 01:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did do a wikilinking run  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * here did it on all the others as well  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Support by Aaroncrick:  Aaroncrick  TALK 05:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fingleton described the Morris’s feat as "one of the catches of the season".—Why not Morris'?
 * Is capitulated perhaps too strong?
 * coming. a typo  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  05:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  06:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

More comments
 * "England batted first and made 363, with Compton making an unbeaten 145, but this seemed an unlikely prospect early on." Order seems a bit skewed: would it be better to have Compton leading recovery or similar, rather than score-Compton-bad start? And (gasp!) noun-verbing!
 * "Soon after, the Australian pacemen hit Compton on the arm, and soon after, felled him with a bouncer that the batsman top-edged into his face." 2 soon afters.
 *  done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "...had Edrich gloving..."
 * Not sure what you want here. I've linked it in any case. It's not a noun with verbing thing  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  07:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Explain why Barnes collapsed? (And I'm sure I read somewhere that his injury released the pressure on England, but not really relevant)
 *  done. The point blank effect is in Barnes in 48  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Lindwall bounced Washbrook and was no balled by umpire Davies for dragging his foot beyond the line." States earlier that he was not no-balled in tour.
 * It appears Fingo made a sloppy generalisation. He does that a few times as other books also note the drag NB. It doesn't surprise me that Perry just copied it  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  07:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "who dropped in on the third attempt" Dropped it? And third attempt may be unclear to non-cricketers. Dropped after three attempts at catching?
 *  done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "The large opening stand came after Washbrook had decided to forego the hook shot against Lindwall's bouncers, which had brought him undone in the earlier Tests." Doesn't sound right. Brought him undone sounds a little odd, and not sure starting sentence with large opening stand is necessary as it is in previous sentence.
 * "The final Test at The Oval saw Lindwall at his best." Says who?
 * done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  07:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "only six current Test players be allowed to represent for the hosts": Is "for" necessary? "After the hosts had complied with his demand, the Australian skipper fielded a full-strength team." Ditto "with the demand".
 *  done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "...with 43 of his wickets coming..."
 *  done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "The ferocity of Lindwall's bouncer often prompted opponents to retreat onto the back foot before he had even released the ball.[3]" Seems an odd way to finish. Possibly move this up and finish with Wisden quote?
 *  done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wisden quote: could it be altered so that you do not need to give the same ref twice in the same sentence? Maybe square brackets?
 * done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  07:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Altered quote in lead to match what you did at end of article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No other problems I can see, and I will support when these are addressed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * done everything I think  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  07:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Support: No other problems. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Background: "had been no-balled 35 times in traditional tour opener against Worchester...". Feels like "the" should be in here.
 * Early tour: Word missing from "Five of opponents were bowled" near the end of the section.
 * Same with "five these by swinging yorkers".
 * First Test: "to" is missing from "leading up the Second Test", again towards the section's end.
 * Third Test: No need for multiple Sid Barners links in the section.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – I was asked to comment on a concern above and have done so in some detail. Other than that, my comments are all taken care of, and it appears to be another winner.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 03:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


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