Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wilfred Rhodes/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 21:05, 8 May 2010.

Wilfred Rhodes

 * Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wilfred Rhodes was a very significant cricketer who holds several world records. I am nominating this for featured article because it is currently GA and I hope it is at FA standard. I have expanded the article a great deal myself but several others have worked on it. It has received a peer review and was copy-edited by Brianboulton. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Infobox I would prefer height in SI units, with older measurement in brackets. In stats, such as balls bowled 185742 may be better represented as 185,742 . However feel free to ignore both comments. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done the second comment, but the infobox seems to but imperial units first so I don't know how to change it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment over all length, initial read lost me at the section After WWI, consider daughter articles like the editors did with Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * I'm not too sure which bits could be cut immediately; I feel most of the article is necessary as the man had a very long career. Are there any bits which seem particularly unnecessary? (Bradman's article is still longer than this one!) --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

* references being repeated where a refname would suffice, would see a reduction from 205 to about 130;
 * example;
 * 83 ^ "South Africa v England in 1909/10". CricketArchive. http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/8/8050.html. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
 * 84 ^ "South Africa v England in 1909/10". CricketArchive. http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/8/8057.html. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
 * 85 ^ "South Africa v England in 1909/10". CricketArchive. http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/8/8077.html. Retrieved 17 November 2009.
 * on second thought is there not a reference which has all of his stats for the one series that can be referred to rather then individual score cards for each game. Gnangarra 14:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Each ref is for a separate scorecard, even though the name is the same. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I realised each was a separate card, but doesnt one of the printed references have all the cards from the one series that can be used instead. Gnangarra 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you only need runs scored, team total, O/M/R/W, then you can just use cricketarchive oracle and make your life easier per the list in Leah Poulton. If you need things like partnerships, balls faced, minutes, stumps score, then the scorecared is needed; however, CI statsguru gives you balls faced, minutes and batting position all in a list, although only for internationals  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though its a summary of the article, the lead needs some refs for the records and facts that could be disputed.
 * I don't think any of the facts are in dispute in the lead, and WP:LEAD states that refs aren't always necessary when the info is given a reference in the main article. Most FAs I've seen do not ref the lead, including recent cricket ones such as this or this (although I know the Bradman article does).--Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from quotes or BLP issues, or really contentious subjective stuff, no it doesn't  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Eight sentences in the lead start with He four of those sentences are in the first paragraph, he is used 20 times in the lead of which only 5 are in the first paragraph. Through out the whole article there is only one paragraph where he isnt used, 3 paragraphs where he is used just once and one paragraph where he used 10 times that first para of the Style and personality section. By the end of the article the repeative use of he is very noticable. Gnangarra 14:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * as a comparison the FA of Donald Bradman uses he in the lead just 7 times and he only starts 1 sentence in the lead. Also note the use of table for statistics rather then writing every thing in prose also the use of quotes instead of images to break the text up. Gnangarra 14:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've begun to remove some of these, although it's quite tricky in places, as you can imagine! I hope I've sorted out the lead and "style and personality" if you could have another look. I will check other sections later, but are there any others which are particularly bad? --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The tables for Bradman are a career summary, which I don't think would tell that much in the case of Rhodes except being yet more statistics. Any table would just be there for the sake of being there and I don't think any of the quotes are long enough to justify using a box.--Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just had another look at the Bradman article, and I'm not sure counting the instances of "he" is going to tell very much: the Bradman article uses "he" quite a lot too. I think this could be unavoidable in an article about a person, although it obviously it should not come up too often in a short space. And I do accept your point about the lead and the "style and personality" section. But listing how often it comes up in other paragraphs does not really help. A quick look at the Bradman article seems to show a similar picture. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In any article about a person with long term achievements using he is inevitable, but the comparison is because this article to that one(near identical subjects) the usage is 5:3 and IMHO the usage of he significantly impacts in this article to point that is the only thing when reading that had a lasting impression. Gnangarra 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have gone through a removed quite a lot of them. How is it looking now, or does it still need more taking out? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Too much attention is being paid to the Bradman article, which was promoted a while back and may not be the benchmark that is being assumed. Forget Bradman, let's judge this article on its own merits. I will come in with some detailed comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bradman article was offered because Bradman is a cricketer that holds a number of records, played over a long period of time and is someone who most people with any cricket knowledge have heard of. The article is not meant to be a benchmark or style guide but rather its an FA that has addressed many of the problems facing this article in dealing with season after season, series after series of game statistics. But you dont need to compare to Bradman try Ian Johnson (cricketer), Arthur Morris, Sid Barnes, Bill Brown (cricketer), Keith Johnson (cricket administrator), Ernie Toshack, Don Tallon. My whole point is that prose of this article needs a lot of attention I offered an example of how a near identical subject dealt with it, assessing this article on its merits it doesnt compare favourably to all/any of these yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs)
 * Could you please give some other specific instances of where the prose needs attention. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see its been undergoing some heavy copy editing, I come back in two days and have another look Gnangarra 03:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * further please clarify the references as as I've dpne or similar as the refernce currently appear to be the same when in they arent or condense using refname if they are. Gnangarra 02:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see the necessity for this personally. However, I understand your point and I've added (First Test), etc. to the references. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support well done Gnangarra 08:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I am reading through, with light copyediting as I go along. The prose is by no means bad, but needs attention here and there. My main criticism, one I raised at the peer review, relates to over-detailing. Rhodes is an important cricketer, and he had a very long career, but the article is still, in my view, too long. One reason for this is the inclusion of fairly trivial anecdotes or information. One example, regarding Rhodes's first appearance at Lords: is this really worth keeping? "One version of the story is that Lord Hawke and Stanley Jackson could not agree who should play and tossed a coin to decide in favour of Rhodes. However, Hawke later claimed that both he and Jackson were always sure that Rhodes was the better bowler." There are other similar instances, and I believe you have to be ruthless in weeding these incidental asides out of the article. Please consider this; I will comment again when my copyedit run is over. Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed some of the trivia. Am I missing any other obvious bits that could go? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 Leaning to support See below (Brianboulton (talk)): Declaration: I carried out a lengthy peer review a few weeks ago. During this FAC I have engaged in further heavy copyediting, mainly to reduce the size of the article by removal of inessential or repeated material. There may be opportunities for further trimming, but I believe that the prose is generally of a good standard now. My main outstanding concerns are as follows:-
 * Images: FAC does not require articles to be copiously illustrated, but I believe that reasonable attempts should be made to add images to text. Much of Rhodes's career was before 1923, and I can't accept there are no more free images relevant to him than the two currently in the article. What about the following?
 * File:Lord Hawke.jpg: A Vanity Fair portrait from 1892 of Rhodes's first Yorkshire captain
 * File:CB-Fry-.jpg: C.B. Fry was Rhodes's Test captain in 1912
 * File:The Oval Pavilion.jpg: This is a modern photograph, but the pavilion is the same one as in Rhodes's day, when he and Hirst won the 1902 Test for England.
 * I am sure that a determined search could produce useful images of, for example, George Hirst and Jack Hobbs. There is even this from Commons (a view of the Harrow School playing fields).
 * Added three images mentioned above. There are other images of Rhodes but I can't scan any myself at the moment (and I'm not sure how to upload them if I could!).--Sarastro1 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Attribution: particularly in the Style section there are statements and quotations that, although cited to sources, are not attributed. We need to know whose views these are. Check through the article for other instances of this.
 * I think I've covered them all. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Citations
 * There are instances in the article where successive sentences are cited to the same source. This is unnecessary - the second citation can cover both. In the first paragraph of "Batting success in Australia", the same citation occurs twice within a single sentence.
 * Again, I think I've got them all. The only ones which are now the same ref in consecutive sentences are ones which include direct quotes (which I understand must always be referenced) or where the two sentences are about different things and the first one may be challenged if it is not realised the ref is in the next sentence (this has happened before!).--Sarastro1 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Although the text is in general very well referenced, there are instances where citations seem to be missing. This is particularly noticeable at the ends of paragraphs, e.g. in "Professional club cricketer" section, and second paragraph of "Late career".
 * There look to be many opportunities to combine references and reduce the length of the References section (for example the last three references are all to the same place).
 * Not too sure about this one as if I combine too many, it may not be obvious that all of it is referenced. For example, last three refs could be combined but then there would be one ref covering a whole paragraph or lots of repeated refs; also, the info does come from those refs rather than a generic pp. 190-92. However, if it is a big problem, I will see what I can do.--Sarastro1 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jargon: the article does not seem to me to be overburdened with cricket jargon, and you have inserted many links, but it would be good to have a comment on this aspect from someone unfamiliar with the game.

If you can address these I will be happy to move to unconditional support of a well-made and absorbing article about a legend of English cricket. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: There are minor issues to be picked up, not critical and I will take these up with the nominator. I am now happy to support the article, which deals with its subject thoroughly and informatively. Good work. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I have copyedited bits of the article  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  00:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments – Checked the sources quickly for reliability, and all appears fine. Books, Cricinfo and CricketArchive make up virtually all of the references, so it wasn't that hard to determine this, but it's worthwhile for the sake of the delegates and other reviewers.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment "Over his career Rhodes appeared in 1,110 first-class matches, which remains a world record" - please mention 1107/4187 either in the text or the notes. Tintin 11:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


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