Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927/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 14:39, 25 August 2010.

Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927

 * Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Yorkshire captaincy affair was over the attempt to appoint a professional captain of a cricket club at a time when all leaders were amateurs. It caused quite a stir at the time and the attempt was quietly abandoned shortly after. It is currently a GA and has been peer reviewed, and I'm pretty sure there is not much else that could be added. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 10:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments
 * Ref 1: date (1980) should follow title, not publisher. To be consistent, publisher location should be added
 * Ref 8 should be formatted as a short citation: "Rogerson, p. 150"
 * Consistency should be applied to formats of page ranges. We have "107–8" and elsewhere "105–06". Personally, I'd always go for the longer form; ranges like "113–4" look odd and wrong.
 * 14 and 31 still need fixing
 * Why not give author's name (David Frith) in the Sellars obit (ref 34)?
 * The Times archive is a subscription service: this should be noted (use )

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All done, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One more point (and the unresolved issue above): you seem to have missed numerous opportunities for combining references. Examples: 10 & 11; 24, 25 & 26; 27 & 28. Is there a reason for not combining? Brianboulton (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed unresolved issue and combined the most obvious references. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I got bored waiting for you to fix the page ranges so I did it myself. No further sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did them some time ago, but DCGeist changed them back as most publishers don't use a lead 0, apparently. I'm not too bothered either way. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Question hy is the title so specific. Where there other Yorkshire captaincy affairs? If not, I think the year can be dropped from the title. Is "Yorkshire captaincy affair" the official/common/accepted title? if not, I don't think it should be bolded in the lead. (For my reasoning, please see Stop bolding everything, which makes a lot of sense, although it only a essay, and not a part of the Manual of Style).  P. S. Burton  (talk)  21:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the year is important to give some context. There were several occasions (e.g. various times in the late 1950s, the 1970s and the 1980s) where Yorkshire had trouble with the captaincy. Just calling it "The Yorkshire captaincy affair" would be too vague and not specific to this one event. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree The title was settled in this form at the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed that bit! Unbolded. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. This seams to be a great read, I will try to do a more extensive review over the weekend. P. S. Burton  (talk)  09:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Having read the article twice, I can't find anything to comment on, I think it's ready to be featured. Disclaimer: Being a Swede, my knowledge of cricket is close to non-existent, I have only been to one game (NSW v. SA). P. S. Burton  (talk)  19:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * "Lupton surrendered the captaincy" was he under pressure to walk or be sacked?  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  03:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he just got too old and resigned. I've reworded it to "resigned". --Sarastro1 (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is bringing your average [length] down :P  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  08:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * " He further believed, as did Roy Kilner, that other professionals were senior to Sutcliffe and would have preferred an amateur captain" Don't understand this. Who is senior doesn't need a subjective opinion as #years/games determines this. Does this mean that WR and RK etc thought they should have been offered the captaincy or that they should get to choose?
 * Reworded this section and tidied it up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lord Hawke sent a message which thanked him and expressed the committee's appreciation of "your loyalty to the club". -> HS for declining or WW for accepting? Teh previous sentence discusses both men
 * HS, done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WW was too inagile for ground fielding or his reflexes were too bad to catch anything? or both?
 * Both. He was just in a bad way! --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we have a name for the last brief capt?
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we know the circumstances of WW, AB and ?? leaving the post? Their stats my provide insight if they had the worst batting average by a mile among the regular batsmen
 * AW and FG did, but they left for other reasons, as did AB. I think they just couldn't spare the time and would probably have continued even if they had averaged 10. Everything I could find is there now, although I suspect Greenwood was gently pushed after controversy over "freak" declarations to engineer results in 1931. But I can't find a ref saying so. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking good  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support copyediting disclaimer  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 07:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The class issues involved make this a very interesting matter. I'll do a full-length copyedit over the next couple days. Looks to be in very good shape. One substantive query so far:
 * In Background, this passage could be made clearer: "He expressed his hope that an amateur would always be available to captain." (First of all, I edited from "He had attempted to express his hope" to "He expressed his hope". Any problem there?) Given the context provided by the preceding sentence, it seems most likely that Lord Hawke was expressing the hope that an amateur would always be available to captain England. But this is not certain. Maybe he expressed that hope about Yorkshire...or England and Yorkshire...or every important side in the land. If the source (which I can access neither via Google nor Amazon) indicates that the "hope" specifically referred to England, the copyedit is simple: "He expressed his hope that an amateur would always be available to captain the national side."—DCGeist (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reworded it; both things he said were in the same "speech" and directly followed each other. It was a real foot-in-mouth moment as he was not even supposed to be speaking, just responding to a vote of thanks. It probably wasn't meant as bad as it sounded. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good.—DCGeist (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Two other points in Background could bear expansion, if the sources make it possible:
 * "E. W. Swanton commented that Yorkshire's attitude when fielding looked likely to jeopardise their relations with other teams." What was it about their "attitude" that Swanton felt was problematic?
 * "several apocryphal stories emerged about [Lupton's] lack of control." Could we have an example of such a story?—DCGeist (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Both done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. The story is vicious and brilliant—better than anything I'd hoped for.—DCGeist (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: By no means do I back the following perception strongly, but it struck me enough to mention it:
 * It seems to me a bit odd to have a picture of Lord Hawke accompanying the lede, when (a) he is not mentioned in the running text of the lede and (b) the image could be switched with that of either Rhodes or Sutcliffe, both of whom are. But maybe the picture of Hawke somehow best captures the spirit of the incident? If you feel that's so, you might consider adding a brief mention of him to the lede's running text.—DCGeist (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've kept Hawke at the top and added a mention of his part to the lead. It was a recommendation from the peer review, and I think it is the best picture for the lead. And as you say, Hawke was very influential in all of this and his fingerprints are all over it! --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done.—DCGeist (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried replacing the Vanity Fair image of Hawke with a colour-corrected higher resolution version. However, I have some problem with a watermark, please see Graphic Lab/Photography workshop P. S. Burton  (talk)  15:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Three Two images. All public domain/copyright expired (one Commons, two one Wikipedia-hosted). All pd descriptions well-evidenced.—DCGeist (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Three questions:-
 * What evidence have we that File:Wilfred Rhodes 1908.jpg was published before 1923?
 * What steps have been taken to justify the claim that the photographer cannot be identified?
 * All I have been able to find is that file info is wrong and it is Sheffield 1911 not Bradford 1908. I've found 2 versions of the photo but neither gives an author. I'm fairly certain that this was a postcard or picture produced for Rhodes' benefit in 1911. I also suspect it may have been published in a Sheffield newspaper. However, I cannot be certain as the earliest publication date I can guarantee is 1960. Until I can find anything else, I will remove the image. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why has File:Herbert Sutcliffe.jpg been forced to 350px? It is out of proportion to its text.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Simply trying to make Sutcliffe more visible. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The opening of Reaction could be improved: "Reports at the time said that Lord Hawke and Toone had denied all knowledge of the matter". It's not clear what Hawke and Toome supposedly denied knowledge of. The fact that no "official offer" had been sent to Sutcliffe? The fact that there had been a vote to appoint him in the first place?—DCGeist (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: So, we have this passage in Background: "In 1925, Lord Hawke, then the Yorkshire president, expressing his hope that an amateur would always be available to captain the national side, had made the impromptu comment, 'Pray God, no professional shall ever captain England.' His remarks were widely reported in the press and heavily criticised. This was to leave Hawke in an awkward situation in 1927." That leads us to expect that once we get to 1927, the narrative will reflect back on this incident: Perhaps Lord Hawke wanted a professional to lead Yorkshire, but felt hesitant because of his comments in 1925. Perhaps some commentator accused him of hypocrisy for favoring Sutcliffe despite the 1925 statement. But, in fact, there is no such narrative reflection. Did Hawke's 1925 remarks actually put him "in an awkward situation" two years later? If so, how?—DCGeist (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done the best I can; I don't think that anything was made of it at the time, but a source has made the connection between his indecisiveness and his earlier comments. If it doesn't work, I'll take out the "awkward situation", but I think Hawke's rather amusing comments should stay there. There is also a later comment by Sutcliffe on the lines of Hawke raising the position of professionals to a certain level and being unhappy when they rose above it. Worth adding to the legacy section, or not bother? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Solution works fine. And the Sutcliffe comment you mention is definitely worth adding, I would say.—DCGeist (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reviews are appreciated DCGeist. Thanks  Aaroncrick  TALK 13:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added quote from Sutcliffe now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * Might a link to working class and/or social class be appropriate in the first paragraph of the background section?
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "By the end of the 1927 English cricket season, Yorkshire had had a...". I know that this is grammatically accurate, but is there a more elegant way of phrasing this?
 * The obvious way is "had been led by", which has been used a few times. The other option is "a succession of amateur captains had led Yorkshire" which I think sounds worse. I'm open to any better alternatives. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As someone who knows next to nothing about cricket, I don't really know for sure what "discipline" means in this sporting context (although I would assume that it would be accepting the umpire's decisions). An example or two of the captain's duties in enforcing discipline may be appropriate after the sentence "The captain's primary role was the enforcement of discipline".
 * Done. The role was really keeping the teams over-competitive instincts in check. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why did Alan Barber's career choice preclude him from staying on as captain?
 * Clarified. A teacher would be unavailable for most of the season and a part time captain would not have been considered suitable in a team like Yorkshire. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Brian Sellers should be linked on his mention in the aftermath section.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the article is very good and I enjoyed reading it! I will support it for FA status when these issues are addressed.-- Midgrid  (talk)  20:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work; I now support the nomination. :) -- Midgrid  (talk)  22:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – A fine read from start to finish, and an enjoyable one as well. I fixed the only glitch I saw.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Last thing I could see on a read-through: In Initial approach, this is ambiguous: "A Press Association correspondent informed Sutcliffe on board his ship that he had been appointed on 4 November." If, as I guess, the shipboard notification happened on that date, this would be clearer: "On 4 November, a Press Association correspondent informed Sutcliffe on board his ship that he had been appointed." If, however, the appointment vote happened on that date, it should be moved to the opening of the paragraph: "Sutcliffe's election was confirmed at a 4 November meeting of the club's governing committee..."—DCGeist (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Realised after your comment that the chronology is a little woolly in terms of dates, so I've added one or two, although some are impossible to find in the sources. --Sarastro1 (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice additions.—DCGeist (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: A short all-rounder with class.—DCGeist (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


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