Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Hamence 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 not promoted by Karanacs 21:49, 26 May 2009.

Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

 * Nominator(s):  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the Invincibles Advert FT drive  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose, mainly on prose grounds. Comment: These matters are all fixable; I wonder why articles in this series never come to peer review? I would much rather be making these comments there than here. Could you consider this before future nominations?

The other issue you should consider is that of reviewer fatigue. This is third such nom in about two weeks. There is considerabe sameness in these articles – same supporting cast, same matches described, same 721-runs-in-a-day blah blah blah. What is the hurry to get them all to FAC? Could they not be spread out a bit, say one nom every couple of months or so? That way there would be more time to sort out problems (such as the egregious reference-strings), and more chance that reviewers would retain interest in the subject. Personally, because I know and like cricket, the 1948 tour is inherently interesting, but there is such a thing as overkill, and non-cricket people might be finding the whole thing bewildering.

Anyhow, here are my prose comments:-
 * Lead
 * There is a typo in the first sentence
 * There is a comma mising after "on-field duties in the major matches"
 * "to not score" would be better as "not to score"
 * I think it should be clear that the remaining eight front-line batsmen each scored at least 973 runs etc
 * Background and early tour
 * This is awkward prose: "He was selected for the tour of England in 1948 under Bradman. His selection was the subject of considerable controversy..." It would flow better as "His selection for the 1948 tour of England under Bradman was the subject of considerable controversy..."
 * Clarify that he was not selected to play in any of the 1948 tests
 * "overs" should be linked thus overs at first mention.
 * In the Yorkshire match report you should clarify that Australia effectively had only three wickets in hand, otherwise it isn't clear why they won by four wickets
 * Successive sentences should not begin with "Hamence"
 * Test non-selection
 * This paragraph should be preceded by some statement that the final Test batting place lay between Brown, Harvey, Loxton and Hamence. I'm sure this point is made somewhere in one of the many tour accounts, and could be cited. Otherwise it s not clear why you are giving so much detail about these other players' records.
 * "voyage" is the wrong word in the first line
 * "Unsurprisingly..." sounds like the editor's POV, could easily be omitted
 * "He batted slowly and cautiously as Bradman gave him few opportunities so he had to make the most of them." This sentence needs some punctuation. Suggest semicolon after "cautiously", drop "as" and put comma after "opportunities"
 * Later matches: "...Bradman insisted that only six players currently in England's Test team be allowed to play for the hosts." Well, no wonder his side was undefeated if he could pick the opposition sides, too! Do you have a specific source for this extraordinary statement - and perhaps "insisted" should be "requested"?
 * Playing role
 * Long winding sentence: "He was the most successful of the specialist batsmen with the ball, occasionally opening the bowling in the tour matches, such as in both innings of the second match against Surrey and the second innings of the second match against Yorkshire, so that Bradman could rested his first-choice bowlers in order to keep them fresh for the Tests." Needs breaking up.
 * "Ground Staff" capitalised here but not in lead.
 * "between No. 5 and No. 7" means No. 6. I think what you mean is that he usually batted No. 5, 6 or 7.
 * Couldn't the long Barnes quote be paraphrased?
 * I will leave for the moment the question of the multi-reference string since this issue has been discussed, but not resolved, on earlier nominations in this series. Let's deal with the prose issues first.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Did all of these things. If put these into FAC once a month, it would still take two years, I don't think that is feasible. As for PR, previous cricket entries there don't get any attention, so I guess I could just ask you for a private one.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, the prose issues are resolved, but that's the easy part. Now, citations. The information that you are supporting with a string of 31 citations is the commonplace, almost negligible fact that on 4 occasions in 19 matches Hamence's batting was curtailed because the Australian innings was ended prematurely. Why is it necessary to cite this at all? WP:CITE says that citation is only required (as distinct from optional) when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged (and in other instances not relevant here). The information you give is uncontroversial, won't be challenged, and therefore doesn't require individual citing – it is covered in the general sourcing. The whole string can be painlessly removed. I suggest you look at the other, less lengthy but still considerable strings, and decide whether they, too, are supporting uncontroversial information.
 * It was only 20-odd I think but I've removed it and just left it to his list of matches for the reader to browse. As it only says majority rather than 15 out of 21...  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was 31, but you've got rid of it. I think you should look again at the six or seven-stringers, and apply the same rule: are the facts supported by these strings in any way controversial or likely to be challenged? If not, I'd say ditch them, too. If you feel you can't do that, perhaps the prose could be arranged so that these long strings appear at the ends of paragraphs rather than in the middle of the text, which would disrupt the prose less.
 * I've struck the oppose, but I am hesitant to move to full support. I think there is more checking that needs doing; for example, it is a mathematical impossibility for 161 runs to produce a batting average of 25.83. Perhaps Giants (below) will give the text a thorough checkover, while I sit on the fence a short while. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting the stat error  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As to what you say about PR, I assure you your articles will not be ignored there. But I think that in any event you should reconsider your timescale for presenting these articles. As I see it, there will need to be 15 more after this one gets through. A period of two or even three years for that many, on so restricted a topic, seems eminently reasonable to me if you want to avoid reviewer fatigue/boredom. Don't forget, you are also doing biographical articles for the individual players. Wikipedia has no rules about topic overkill as far as I know, but a possible 30+ featured articles from a single cricket tour is food for some thought. Anyway, if you can respond positively to my comment about the citation strings, I'll be happy to revise my weak oppose on this nomination. (signature added later) Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Don't want to review too extensively until Brian's comments are looked at, but I must say that the reference strings don't get any better the fourth time one sees them in a candidate. At least there is only one really long one here, though there are a few other strings that range from five to seven citations.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 00:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look at the text as Brian requested, although I'm useless for figuring out cricket batting averages:
 * "which toured England in 1948 and went undefeated its 34 matches." Missing word in the first sentence of the article.
 * Why not wikilink Test in the second paragraph, so us non-cricket fans will know what this is? The same could be done for runs as well.
 * Background and early tour: "being selected in three of the ten matches in the previous two seasons for a total of 81 runs at 27.00." This jams a lot of thoughts into one sentence and doesn't make much sense upon close reading; it almost reads like he was selected for the runs. I would split this into two sentences and clarify the last part.
 * "but in a 2008 interview, reiterated that he felt no resentment over his omission." No indication of him iterating that to begin with.
 * "before being run out after being slow to set off for a quick single". Spot the repeated word.
 * I can't after 5 minutes. I fixeds the rest through  YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Altered to "before he was run out after being slow to set off..." Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "He returned for the next match Cambridge University." Another missing word.
 * "Recalled for the next match, which was against Lancashire at Old Trafford in Manchester". "which was" can be chopped without losing anything from the sentence.
 * "and then an unbeaten 49 at No. 6 in the second". "then" could be chopped from here.
 * That covers the lead and first section of the body. I'll be back as soon as I can to look at the rest.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Test non-selection: "Since World War II, the first five positions Australia's Test batting order...". "In" their batting order?
 * "with Hamence being assigned to open the batting." An awkward noun plus -ing structure.
 * "with the drawn Third Test being Australia's only non-victory." Same as above.
 * Playing role: "This allowed Bradman to rest his first-choice bowlers in order to keep them fresh for the Tests." Little bit of wordiness that can be safely removed.
 * Reference 5 is dead. Might want to consider converting that into an offline citation.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed all of these. I forgot that "being" counts as an "-ing" as well  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support - I'm a lot happier with it than I was when the review began. It's a weak support because the few remaining reference strings still bug me a little bit. I also can't guarantee that I spotted every prose glitch that was lurking. Still, the article is much improved since the process began, and I think it scrapes by the standards.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Note I passed this article for GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-written, well-sourced, overall excellent article. With regards to the links, they all seem to work (correct me if I'm wrong). Khoikhoi 03:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose due to image concerns as follow:
 * File:Hamence.jpg: this photo is lacking information on where it came from, which year it was taken, and who took it. Due to the URAA, to qualify for PD-US, it needs to be taken before 1946 (we have gone over this before.  If I am not wrong, this image is from a 1950 baseball card (see here, item 1014).
 * This is replaced with a 1939 photo from http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/image/296315.html. Problem is that it is not certain to be a work by an Australian (criteria for Australian copyright).  Cricinfo claims copyright over it (which I find incredulous since they are founded in 1993...) and they are a United Kingdom-based company, which means UK copyrights.  If we believe their claim, this photo would not pass the URAA mark either (UK copyrights: 70 years pma or after first publication for anonymous works -> PD-UK from 2010 onwards, which means not PD-UK on Jan 1, 1996).  If we ignore their claim, we would have no reliable information on which country's copyright this photo comes under (UK journalists are known to go to Australia to take photos and write reports for back home then).  Jappalang (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From my reading of PD-Australia doesn't it only require the photo to be made in Australia?  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 05:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, to qualify for Australian copyright, it had to be created by an Australian or first published in Australia. Jappalang (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I doubt we will find a free photo for Hamence in 1948 (unless someone took a personal photo then and releases it). I would have advised using these two photos as fair use, but it seems from the article that Hamence is still kicking and hence, "it is possible to get a free image of him now" would be in force here. I kind of doubt Cricinfo (a British or Indian startup) has copyright over the 1939 photo (if this is Australian, it would comply with URAA...), but without verifiable information, we cannot just use it (pity)... Of course, if there is a photo that illustrates critical commentary of Hamence's performance in this test and such commentary is hard to express in words, that photo could comply with fair use. Regardless, the issues of copyrighted photos should be resolved before promoting this as one of Wikipedia's best articles. Jappalang (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Toshack&Hamence.jpg: per above, 1948 would violate the URAA. This photo was definitely taken in 1948 (See here, item #1100).
 * File:Ron Hamence graph 1948.PNG: please provide the sources for the statistics (this should be easily resolved).
 * Removing, and data source added for graph  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly (because there are no "free" images), the only image left is the graph and it checks out fine. Jappalang (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak support - I have no specific issues, so I'll support. However, I am concerned that the prose is rather dry, and reads somewhat like a list of statistics. I realize that this would be nearly impossible to address in such an article, though. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments I'm going to be mostly useless here because, frankly, I couldn't follow most of the article. I would consider it inaccessible to someone who isn't familiar with cricket... cricket, test cricket, and subarticles are prerequisite reading. Some brief comments:
 * I wonder, do we need the whole of the infobox (mainly referring to the biographical info) when it exists in Hamence's main article?
 * I'd say it provides some useful background about him, conenveinience  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Australian cricket team, which toured England in 1948 and went undefeated in its 34 matches" Would you consider "was undefeated"?
 * sure


 * "Hamence was not prominent in the team's success" I think "instrumental" might be a more apt term.
 * Cricket ignorant here... I clicked "gentle medium pace" to get an explanation that wasn't readily available. Is it the same as "slow medium pace"?
 * about 115km/hr basiccally although they had no speed guns in his day  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Australia promptly crushed the hosts by an innings." A bit too sportscaster-ish. What does "by an innings" mean?
 * Will link to innings. Yes terminiology is difficult  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, mainly for lack of coherence (unity of ideas) and flow.

Here are some examples from the lead, but I see such problems in the remaining sections as well, and there is no easy fix. I believe the article should be withdrawn and worked on for about a month and then resubmitted (if this series of articles is still felt to be feasible).


 * Sentence 1 (Flow): Ron Hamence was a member of Donald Bradman's famous Australian cricket team, which toured England in 1948 and was undefeated in its 34 matches.
 * Changes from active to passive within the sentence, instead of, say, "which toured England in 1948 and won each of its 34 matches."
 * Sentence 2 (Coherence): As a result of this unprecedented feat by a touring side, the team earned the sobriquet The Invincibles.
 * We, the average readers, have no awareness that this feat was unprecedented; consequently this fact should not be introduced in passing, but rather as the center of focus, with the moniker, "Invincibles", instead mentioned in passing. i.e. something along the lines of: "Since no touring side had previously won all its matches against England, the team garnered much praise, including the moniker "The Invincibles."


 * Sentence 3 (Coherence): A right-handed middle-order batsman, Hamence was not instrumental in the team's success.
 * If he was not instrumental in the team's success, then this non-notability should be balanced with something notable about the player to assure us readers that the article is worth reading. But nothing notable is mentioned in this sentence or in the next few.


 * Sentence 4 (Connotation/repetition/syntax) Regarded as the last batsman to be chosen for the team, his selection for the tour was the subject of controversy because many batsmen who had scored more heavily in the preceding Australian season were overlooked.
 * "Regarded as?" He was either the last man chosen or not. If the information was not conclusively available, then say, "Rumored to be the last man ..."
 * "for the tour" is redundant, having been already stated in the previous sentences.
 * "Scored more heavily?" Why not simply, "scored more runs," especially in the lead paragraph, where one is trying to attract the general reader?
 * "were overlooked?" For past within past, you need "had been overlooked."


 * Sentence 5 (Coherence/redundancy) Aside from Colin McCool, Hamence was the only squad member to not play a Test on tour.
 * "Test" is introduced all too abruptly. The reader needs more information.  For example: "Of the 34 matches played by the touring side, five were Test matches against England and the remaining 29 against various English county clubs." (or words to that effect).
 * "on tour" is redundant. "... not to play in any test match against England" is better. ("any" is added for emphasis.)


 * Sentence 6 (Diction (connotation)): Along with Doug Ring, Hamence and McCool called themselves "ground staff" because of the paucity of their on-field duties in the major matches, and they often sang ironic songs about their status.
 * The diction is too formal for the description at hand. "paucity of their on-field duties in the major matches?"  What are "on-field duties?"
 * "often sang ironic songs about their status?" Too vague.  Were these songs they made up?  If so, say "improvised songs ..."
 * "ironic" is probably not the right word here, and sounds awkward. (I don't know the songs, so I can't say for sure.) "sardonic," "mocking," "disparaging," "self-deprecating," "satirical," ... might be more to the point.
 * "status?" Again too vague.  Saying "they improvised songs mocking their experience sitting on the sidelines," or words to that effect is probably better.

These are just the first six sentences. Pretty much all sentences in the article have similar issues. They need extensive work. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.