Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC).

Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

 * Notified: YellowMonkey, WikiProject Biography/Sports and games, WikiProject Australian sports, WikiProject Cricket, talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because it synthesizes too much information (especially in regard to statistics), leading to violations of WP:OR. Additionally, the notability of this subject may need to be reevaluated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just jargon, but I can't figure out how the infobox of Test debut of 15 August 1948 and a "last Test" of 14 August 1948 works. Like how is you first test match after you're last one? Hog Farm Talk 17:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs a serious check for jargon Ring was the equal third highest wicket-taker in first-class matches excluding the Tests, with 59 scalps - What's a scalp? Only time this word appears, neither me nor presumeably the average person has any clue what this means.  Also, should this just be merged to Doug Ring?  It's a bunch of deep detail for someone who didn't play a sizable role in the series. Hog Farm Talk 17:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A scalp, in this context, is a wicket. By using the word we can avoid repeating "wicket" in the same sentence. Or we could just remove the word and have a perfectly fine sentence ending with 59. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the best thing to do is. "Scalp" is incomprehensible to the average person in this context, so I don't think the status quo is good here. Hog Farm Talk 17:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed it - although I'd see it as straightforward, but then I watch an awful lot of cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed the last Test issue. The dates were both 14 August before it's day as FA - clearly some twit changed something and no-one spotted it. I've used the onetest field as it's probably slightly better to do so. I'm not convinced that the cricket infobox as it's set up now is the best way to present this information - career statistics, for example, is misleading. It would, perhaps, need a new infobox to deal with an article such as this - that's doable, but obviously means creating a new infobox. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on the talk page, I have no experience in FAs, but I would personally like to focus on whether the notability of this subject may need to be reevaluated.
 * A was observed on the talk page, virtually all sources are statistics (either databases or almanacs) and thus most commentary is original research. Although some statements are sourced, the bulk are inferred from statistics. As such, I don't see how this can meet criteria 1c. More sources are needed to a) actually support the commentary in the article, and b) prove the notability of Ring's '48 tour. I'm sorry I can't make a more specific request for improvements here, but at some points the article seems to be barely discussing Ring and instead talks about the tour generally because there is simply no information available on Ring's role. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 01:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A was observed on the talk page, virtually all sources are statistics (either databases or almanacs) and thus most commentary is original research. Although some statements are sourced, the bulk are inferred from statistics. As such, I don't see how this can meet criteria 1c. More sources are needed to a) actually support the commentary in the article, and b) prove the notability of Ring's '48 tour. I'm sorry I can't make a more specific request for improvements here, but at some points the article seems to be barely discussing Ring and instead talks about the tour generally because there is simply no information available on Ring's role. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 01:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I am deeply skeptical that this article has enough significant coverage in sources to establish notability. As other editors have said, Mr. Ring is notable, the team which went to England in 1948 is notable, but this one person at the 1948 games is questionable. Unfortunately, the primary author, who presumable has access to the offline sources, has been inactive for a decade. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Like noted above, I have a strong suspicision that the content here would be best handled with some in the Doug Ring article and others in the team article. Hog Farm Talk 04:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think there's any content here that needs saving. seems to capture all the important points, while this article breaks it down play-by-play and seems to be mostly WP:FANCRUFT and statistics which don't warrant this level of attention. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 04:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no particular interest in the 1948 tour and have not made any major edits to the article, but want to provide an alternative viewpoint here.
 * we have plenty of obscure topics that make TFA. That's a good thing. Later this month I believe we have another Yugoslav ship, a soccer club season from the 1920s and a local war memorial. Along with climate change. A mix of articles is a good thing. Is Ring super-notable for his role in 48? Possibly not, although he did take 60 first-class wickets on the tour. He only played in one Test match, but there were another 30 matches on the tour, the majority of which were first-class. But I've seen less notable TFA.
 * I have a major issue with synthesis from statistics in cricket articles. Here there are scorecards being used to help source the narrative - I've seen a lot worse statistical synthesis in sports articles and a lot more use of "and against XXX she..." style of writing.
 * some of the analysis of sources is making assumptions about offline sources. I'm not sure that's an entirely fair thing to do, and I do wonder if there's a tendency to look for one source that "proves" notability, rather than to accept that a range of sources lead to a cumulative notability
 * the CricketArchive references are scorecards - not statistical databases as such, although they do generally lack prose (I'd have to check - there may be limited prose on some of them, but can't be sure until I can get to a computer that allows me proper access. I could source all of them to The Times, which will have the scorecards along with reports, easily enough in an afternoon
 * the Wisden sources are prose, not statistical. Wisden would have had significant prose reports of at least each of the first-class matches and, in particular, the Test matches on the tour. Some of these may be available online, although they aren't always easy to access. We'd need someone with access to the 1949 edition of Wisden to be sure. I'll see what I can do with this
 * a notes section and some references have recently been removed from the article, which worries me slightly. I'm not entirely sure why as it's all mixed up in the usual flurry of editing during TFA day; the edit summaries will need picking apart
 * As I say, I don't have an over-riding love of this article, but I do feel a need to offer some form of challenge here! Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For my part, I have no overriding hatred of this article or its subject(s), but I do fail to see why it deserves independent encyclopaedic coverage. It's not its obscurity that concerns me but the fact that it lacks any claim of significance. If the lead of the article essentially says "Ring had little impact on the '48 tour" then I fail to see why his involvement in the tour has encyclopaedic importance. I was not aware that Wisden was a prose source so I will concede that I've overlooked that. On the other hand, none of the prose sources are primarily about Ring, but there are of course a few on the tour which may help establish notability. I don't believe you can point to a collection of stats/game reports and say "look, individually these aren't important but put them together and it proves notability" (sorry if that's an oversimplification of your argument), there has to be some in-depth coverage that says "this is important and here's why". Nothing in this article (or online) seems to be doing that. Most of the time, it's doing the opposite. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 05:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be the prose sources that I would suggest could be used to cumulatively show a level of notability. To review sources such as The Times reports (which I doubt were available online in 2007) will take some time I'm afraid - I don't have as much of that as I'd like. I will try to make a start at least, but a specific "to do" list would be of some use. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the hard copy Wisden, but this appears to be a republication of the series report in the 1949 edition. Hack (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The only mention of Ring is that As with McCool, limited opportunities came to Ring, the other leg-break bowler, who was slightly the faster through the air, and, though playing in the last Test, Ring was never a trump card in the pack., so if that's the level of coverage Wisden has it certainly is not significant coverage. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 05:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - they might have the reports of the Test matches online as well, but they seem to be moving them around the website unfortunately. As I say, there would have been reports of at least every first-class match and probably, at that time, the other matches as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do have a copy of the 1949 Wisden - what do you want to know? Note that the "As with McCool,..." quote is from the main "Australians in England, 1948" article by R. J. Hayter (page 207). This article is followed by the statistical summary and then the individual match reportsNigel Ish (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * it's referenced a few times in the article and there is an assumption that Ring is barely mentioned - which he may well not be. I suppose, given the discussion, it would be helpful to know if there's much depth on Ring, especially with regard to county matches which he seems to have played a lot of. If you get the chance. has added some Trove articles, which are good to have, but this discussion seems to hinge on whether there's any real depth of coverage on Ring himself on the tour. Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For the Leicestershire vs Austalians match Wisden p217 says that "Ring's leg breaks caused most trouble to Leicestershire in the first innings..." - [13] Australia vs Essex - Wisden is used for match events and the scorecard - no significant coverage of Ring. [17] Notts match - Wisden used for match events (i.e. Hardstaff making a century with the scorecard used for Ring taking the wicket - no significant coverage. [20] - Match events - no significant coverage of Ring. Northants v Australia (p. 232) - "Johnston and Ring bowled skilfully in Northamptonshire's second innings...". Gloucestershire v Australia (pp. 238–239) "Johnstone...and Ring were the match winning bowlers". Fifth test - Wisden used for match events - no significant coverage of Ring. Gentlemen v Australia (p. 255) - "The Gentlemen's second innings was marked... and skilful leg-break bowling by Ring". Somerset v Australia [45] - Wisden used for match events - no significant discussion of Ring. Scotland v Australia (p. 259) "...the other batsmen failed against Morris and Ring".
 * So basically Wisden appears to have been used to source match events - other than the "as with McColl..." quote, and it does not appear to discuss him or his contribution to the tour in depth. Hope this is of some use.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that's really helpful. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose my suggestion would be to replace the CricketArchive sources with The Times, because if they're actually talking about Ring on the tour then it could help prove notability. I still don't really understand this idea of "cumulative notability", because, as I mentioned on the talk page, a similar method of sourcing could be used to write season-by-season articles for any major athlete (for example, Patricio O'Ward with McLaren in IndyCar in 2021). That to me sounds absurd. If you could find an example of The Times coverage I'd like to have a look at it, because I'm not sure whether I would class it as significant coverage or not. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 05:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will take a look, but we're probably talking 3-4 article per match and there were 29 matches on the tour in the UK... (e2a: and I do take your point about the idea of such articles by the way) Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, that sounds more substantial to me. Whether it will verify the commentary in the article I don't know, but I'm willing to keep an open mind about it. Assuming it does justify the article's content, I would still lean more towards a merger to Doug Ring rather than keeping an independent article, but we'll see. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 06:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A brief aside: I've skimmed through the featured topic Australian cricket team in England in 1948, of which this article is a part, and there seem to be similar issues in the topic's other articles, though perhaps not to the same extent since many of the other players were more active. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As a quick drive-by comment, I very much share concerns about the notability of the topic (particularly WP:PAGEDECIDE), but I don't think an FAR is the appropriate forum to litigate those. The merge/AfD systems are designed for that. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have proposed that this article be merged into Doug Ring, see Talk:Doug Ring. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While a merge may be appropriate, I think it would be better to let FAR run its course first. Having two concurrent discussions about the article's fate will make it harder to come to consensus, in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see a number of people raising concerns about notability above. If there is a deletion or merger to be proposed, that discussion should be conducted outside of FAR, and that should happen sooner rather than later. If the article were to be deleted or merged it would not retain FA status, making this process moot. To that end, I would suggest that Trainsandotherthings do some neutral notifications to relevant projects on the merge discussion so that consensus can be arrived at on that issue. Also pinging participants above to make them aware of Talk:Doug Ring: . Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per discussion on Talk:Doug Ring, the discussion has moved to AfD, at Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination). I will notify the relevant projects now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The AfD was closed today with a consensus to merge. As such, this FAR is now moot. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the FAR is not moot; it is essential to how FAs that no longer exist are removed from the FA pages. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I assume that it just needs someone to close this as delisted? (continued discussion is moot unless we want to treat this as a "Good Redirect"?)Nigel Ish (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So long as the merge is actually carried out, this ought to be speedily closeable as delisting. This doesn't look like a case where a relitigation of the closure is likely, but I'd still rather see the content merge before the closing. Hog Farm Talk 20:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The FAR Coords decide when to close a FAR, based on feedback from other reviewers (things like Delist now, or Merge then delist). ` Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hold The instructions here say that there is no rush as long as work is being done to rectify the article. I see some articles are still there after a year. I have been adding sources from newspapers that were not available online in the old days and made a note of it on the other page but the discussion was closed anyway Grubby Richard (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the consensus has been formed that the article is not notable. Once the content has been merged, which is the consensus of the AfD debate, there will be no FA to review. 20:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5225C (talk • contribs)
 * Agree with the above comment. There's no point in holding when the AFD has come to a very strong consensus that this shouldn't be an article. Hog Farm Talk 21:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The AfD has already closed with a strong consensus to merge. There is no basis for a hold here. The appropriate venue to contest is at deletion review, not here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the three previous posters; there is no basis to hold this FAR open. The options are Delist now or Merge then delist.  FAR cannot override a community AFD consensus to merge. By community consensus, the FA no longer exists. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delist per AFD consensus to merge, without moving to FARC. I agree with Hog Farm that it would be preferable for the article’s content to be merged before we close this FAR, but that is not happening.  I looked into doing the merge myself, but because the target article at Doug Ring is a GA, and I don’t understand most of the content, I don’t feel that I can complete the merge without damaging the GA.  It is not within the remit of the FA process to deal with the merge that no one is undertaking.  FAR’s purpose is to determine if an FA still meets the criteria.  There is broader consensus beyond FAR that the article should not exist and should be merged elsewhere, and a non-existent article can’t be a Featured article.  We can proceed to delist even though no one has yet completed the merge.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  07:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delist for the reasons explained by SandyGeorgia. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delist per SandyGeorgia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural delist, although I'd feel more comfortable if someone performed the merger so this doesn't fall through the cracks somehow. Hog Farm Talk 14:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.