Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Saggers 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 15:07, 28 April 2009.

Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

 * Nominator(s):  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of Invincibles Advert FT drive...  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * FAC on other Wicket-keeper in the team  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FAC on other Wicket-keeper in the team  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is there really no other way I can confirm simple statements other than by consulting a string of 20+ citations, as you appear to be requiring me to do on several occasions? Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * short answer, no, because the statisticians don't normally keep a record of that kind of thing in a group. The statistical databases do have input querying things where you can ask it to calculate averages and create a page for you, but only batsmen and bowlers and not wicket-keepers. For whatever reason, their processing/summary pages don't keep track of how many fumbles the wicketkeeper makes in the said player's summary page, so you have to count them individually with match-by-match scorecards.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments - I agree with Brian on the reference strings. I count eight strings of six or more references, including five of the 20+ variety. Are there really no books or other sources that can cite these facts without making readers look through that many match scorecards? The early part seems quite good, if heavy on cricket jargon. I'll try to come back and read it more closely later, but it may be a few days before I return due to a heavy real-life workload.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 03:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you go to link 5 this one, it says that in the Leeds Test, Saggers took 4 catches in the first innings and two in the second. But if you go to the scorecards, he took 2 and 1. Is this a cricketarchive bug ? Tintin 06:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Happens on a lot of them. I always go to the scorecard directly. The Harvey orcale says he took 6 catches in the HEadingley Test.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tech. Review
 * No disambiguation links were found with the dab finder tool.
 * No dead external links were found with the links checker tool.
 * With WP:REFTOOLS: the following ref is used more than once under 2 different ref names, it needs fixing
 * -- T ru  c o   19:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The format for the access dates for refs 37 and 39 should be changed to YYYY-MM-DD to be consistent with the rest of the article. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 20:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What is going on with those long strings of citations? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I answered this to Brian above. Unfortunately the summary sheet for wicketkeepers neglects to count the fumbles so I had to get the individual scorecards and count them up.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say I wasn't convinced by your answer. "Counting the fumbles" seems unnecessarily detailed, as well as completely mucking up the article's appearance. For "batsmen" articles, would you count the times  they play and miss? I'm sure we can appreciate Mr Saggers's performance on the 1948 tour without exact knowledge of his fumbles. Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For batsmen, no scorecard records how often they play and miss. For wicketkeepers, byes are recorded in the scorecard explicitly and they do keep lists of most byes conceded in a Test etc, Dinesh Karthik in late 2007 and Matt Prior in early 2009 were criticised a lot when they broke these records. Also, byes hurts the team on the scoreboard; playing and missing does not.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note also that byes only count fumbles that result in the loss of a run. If a wicketkeeper drops the ball but it doesn't run away then the batsmen can't take a run and that is equivalent to the play/miss which doesn't cost anything on teh bottom line.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 01:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The number of byes conceded is a critical piece of information in an article about an wicket-keeper. As YM mentioned above wicket-keeper are in part judged by the number of byes they concede. The article is better for the inclusion of this information and I would be loathe to see it removed merely because the string of references looks untidy. That said, the long string is untidy and unwieldy for readers and others attempting to ensure the article correctly reflects the references. Is there a method where the string of notes could be consolidated into one note, with many links to the source data? There is no rule, AFAIK, that says each link requires a separate note. Yes, the notes section would look a little less tidy but the article appearance would be improved dramatically. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can put more than one source within an individual footnote tag like this:""Here is how that might look in this article. The only problem then is in using the individual citations more than once, but a bit of creative thinking should be able to get around this. Steve  T • C 08:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But then about 20 cites will need to be listed twice...or the bunch of 34 could be used everywhere and confuse the person who is looking about where the info comes from.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 00:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, that's definitely a drawback, but some creative thinking might be able to resolve this; perhaps some elaborate variation on how the Harvard citation template works? It's definitely worth looking into it if it avoids that long string of cites at no detriment. Steve  T • C 13:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)A
 * Why not just provide one link to CA page on the series, or Player Oracle link for Saggers' matches, and leave it at that ? The reader will need to click twice to reach the scorecard of the particular match. So what ? (It is probably only very few imbeciles like me who actually visit all these scorecards anyway !) I am more on Brian Boulton's side in the business of byes. The article tries too hard to convince the reader that Saggers was better than Tallon *because* he conceded fewer byes, which is an incorrect assumption. Tintin 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comment Support While I would prefer that the reference strings were smaller, that does not seem to me to prevent this being some of Wikipedia's best work. However, there is just a few little points before I can support
 * Australia won by an innings and 451 runs, the largest margin of the season. I know this means winning margin but it doesn't sound quite right to me. Does it need the word "winning" in there or just changed to "largest win".
 * Should innings and 451 runs be linked to result (cricket) to explain the concept of an innings victory? This may require an earlier link for an innings victory.
 * It was a chance to gain a psychological advantage, Should this clause specify whose chance to get an advantage it was, i.e. Australia's and why Tallon gave Australia that advantage. I don't think the sentence makes that clear at present.
 * crease at 7/98 Cricket scoring notation needs explanation or spelling out in the first instance, i.e. 7 wickets for 98 runs (7/98). Perhaps a footnote to explain that the article uses Australian notation despite the series was played in England would be useful.
 * county fixtures needs a link I think, but what too? County Championship perhaps but that is a little misleading.
 * took three more dismissals. Do you "take" a dismissal or do you "make" a dismissal? Make sounds more natural to me, but I am willing to consider the alternative.
 * not required to bat as Australia declared at 5/549 Would spelling it out here i.e. "declared their innings closed at" be clearer for non-cricket readers?
 * Tallon's little left finger Should this be "left little finger"? I'm not sure which way is correct, but the latter sounds more natural to me.
 * During the innings, Saggers was noted for being quiet and unvocal behind the stumps, whereas Tallon was known for loudly appealing in concert with the bowler The way this is written, it is unclear if it was during this innings that Saggers was quiet and unvocal and Tallon was known for loudly appealing (and both played in the innings) or if someone noted this innings that Saggers was quiet in comparison to Tallon normally being loud. If it was someone in particular who noted this, perhaps this should be mentioned. Also, isn't "quiet and unvocal" a tautology?
 * Leveson-Gower's XI Someone will ask, "What's an XI?" A link to 11 (number) may help.
 * batting between No. 8 and No. 10 A link to batting order (cricket)?

There is nothing too major in all of that and happy to support when addressed. The string of refs may require a technical fix. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done all of these.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to support although I would like to see the ref strings fixed if possible. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I'm sorry, but I cannot accept this, as it stands, as an example of Wikipedia's best work. The unsightly reference strings would make any reader blench, but that's not the core of the problem.


 * Reading through the article again, I am struck by the emphasis given in the text to the comparative rates at which Saggers and Tallon conceded byes during the series, this comparison being the basis of most of the giant reference strings. The impression on the reader is that all byes are conceded due to wicket-keeper error, which is not the case. This is the reason why separate statistics for bye concession are not tabulated – it is impossible to say what proportion of byes are due to wicket-keeper error ("fumbles") as against other causes – erratic or misdirected bowling, unpredictable bounce and deviation from the pitch, poor light etc.  So the very precise percentages which you use to compare Saggers's performance with Tallon's are somewhat misleading, and don't justify the repeated multiple references you supply.


 * Judging the relative values to the side of the two wicket-keepers is a more complex task than simply comparing their bye concession rates. To be fair, you do imply this in the article, but the impression is still given that this comparison is the fairest indicator of relative performance and that the selectors were being somewhat unfair to Saggers (perhaps the same unfairness that prevented him from ever being picked for a Test in Australia?). Is there not, among the dozens of books and accounts of the 1948 tour, a statement to the effect that while Saggers proved, in England, to be generally the tidier of the two wicket-keepers and conceded fewer byes, Tallon's greater athleticism and potential with the bat kept him in the top spot? A reference to a statement like that would, in my view, do away entirely with the need for these intrusive reference strings and would reduce the need for the somewhat repetitive comparisons.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose sorry. I agree with Brian and the citation style ruins the flow of the prose so the article does not satisfy Criterion 1a. Graham Colm Talk 14:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.