Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Mold/archive1

Arthur Mold
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take it to FAC and would like to know if it has enough information and detail to make it worthwhile. Also, it largely concerns something of a cricket technicality and I would like to make sure that it is easy enough to follow for non-cricketers. Plus, the usual prose catches and does it actually make sense!

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from  Harrias  talk
 * "However, his career was overshadowed by controversy over his bowling action which was probably a factor in his playing so few Tests." – Although there is nothing technically wrong with this sentence, I wonder if "in his playing so few Tests." could be written in a slightly tidier fashion? However, everything I've considered has become too wordy, so you might be right!
 * I don't really like it either, and I stuck it in as an afterthought, so I've taken it out for now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Although he took 1,673 wickets in first-class matches, many commentators viewed his achievements as tainted." – Might it be worth some sort of comparison, if possible, here – or something generally to signify that this number of wickets is an achievement?
 * I've given his place on the leading wicket-takers list, but would prefer something more accurate: i.e. where was he on the list when he died? It's almost impossible to work out without doing a lot of work (and probable OR) for very little effort. Maybe someone has a handy source; cricinfo calls him the leading wicket-taker among fast bowlers when he died, but Jhall pointed out that it was actually Richardson, so even good sources get this wrong. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not convinced that the link to the town of Banbury is appropriate in the lead when you are using the term to refer to Banbury Cricket Club, I'm happy with how it is done in the "Early life and career" section though.
 * I actually think it does need a link here, as most readers will have little idea where precisely Banbury is. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In the "Early life and career" section, you use "Banbury Cricket Club" and then "Manchester cricket club" – be consistent: I prefer them all capitalised.
 * Agree, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "His best performance statistically was seven for 35 against Yorkshire County Cricket Club, in a match in which he took 13 wickets," – I might be getting a bit pedantic, but would it be worth clarifying "His best innings performance.." or "His best performances in an innings.." ?
 * Not sure this is worth it to specify for a seasons-best. However, a non-cricketer may be able to lend some assistance here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Beyond those reasonably minor points, the article looks very well written, and I think deals very well with a cricket technicality. I can't obviously comment on how well a lay person would understand it, but I find it very informative, and most importantly for something like this, it adheres very well to our NPOV guidelines: it would have been easy to stray to one side or the other, but you maintained the fence line! As usual, nice work, well done!  Harrias  talk 11:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and kind words. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'm glad that the controversy is at the heart of the article; this makes the article much more interesting to me than the kind of sports biography that is essentially a chronological list of points scored (or blocked). I don't think the length is a problem; just the opposite. You have just the right amount of detail. I ran into a snag or two, noted below. Most of my comments, however, address minor MOS issues. I don't think anything I'm suggesting will give you a headache. Nice job.

Lead
 * "He was selected for England in three Test matches in 1893 and was a Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 1892." - Would it be slightly better to reverse these so that 1892 precedes 1893 in the sentence?
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "A fast bowler, he was one of the most effective bowlers in England during the 1890s." - Maybe make this the second sentence and the 1892–93 sentence the third to smooth the chronology even further?
 * Reworked this slightly. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "several prominent bowlers with dubious bowling actions" - I'd remove the link on bowling action since it's already linked earlier in the lead.
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Early life and career
 * "His family had links with the thatching trade" - I'd consider linking thatching.
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "He began to play for the village side. - Perhaps add (team) after "side", which North American readers may not understand. For example, "side" might be mistaken to mean "north side" or "south side". How odd to play for just one side of the village, those readers may say, looking puzzled.
 * Changed to team instead. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "played a few non first-class cricket matches for Lancashire" - Foreigners may stumble here too. They will not know if this means second-class cricket or inferior cricket or quite what. What exactly is a "first-class cricket match"? Also, "non" is not a word by itself. You either need two hyphens or a different expression.
 * Went for "non-competitive" instead. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "at the time not a first-class county" - I assume this means that the county did not have a first-class cricket team and not that it was an inferior county.
 * Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "At the time, cricketers who wished to play for a county in which they were not born had to live there for two years to qualify." - This is confusing since Mold had already "played a few non first-class cricket matches for Lancashire". Did the two-year rule only apply to first-class matches?
 * There's a whole mine-field in this one, so I've left it at "competitive first-class matches" (it basically meant County Championship matches, but the Championship did not exist until 1890 and it was all rather unofficial and gentlemen's agreement stuff before that). Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Leading bowler
 * "He was chosen in a representative match for the first time" - I think a brief explanation of "representative match" would be helpful. Maybe something like "all-star game" in parentheses?
 * Not quite as grand as that, so I put a note in. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "and the opinion that the difficult, uneven pitches on which Lancashire played their home games flattered Mold's bowling" - To prevent North Americans from getting stuck on "pitch", which is a common baseball word for "throw", I'd link to Cricket pitch.
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Mold called for throwing
 * On my computer screen, File:Archie MacLaren.jpg displaces the subhead "Mold called for throwing". This could be fixed easily by moving the image down one paragraph.
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Acting at the request of the Lancashire committee, MacLaren then switched Mold to bowl from the opposite end so that Phillips would be at the bowler's end. Even so, Phillips continued to no-ball him... " - Here I am lost. What difference could it make to switch ends? Was the idea to make Phillips view things from a different angle? Note 5 is helpful, but I think North American readers will need to have the intended purpose of the tactic explained more clearly.
 * Err... Not too sure actually, none of the sources make it clear. There is no sensible explanation except to give a different angle, but no source says so. Today it is the square-leg umpire who usually adjudicates if a ball is thrown, but as the note says, this umpire was only given the authority in 1899. My cynical thought is that MacLaren may not have understood the rule change meant that either umpire could no-ball the bowler for throwing, but I have nothing to back this up. And it makes little sense; the given reason for switching ends is that the Lancashire committee wished Mold to continue, but there was no need to swap things around to do so. A mystery, I'm afraid! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath
 * "The MCC also recommended that the counties did not play suspected bowlers... " - Delete "did"?
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

References
 * Citation 9's ISBN needs hyphens. A converter lives here.
 * Done.

Sarastro1 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That's all I have. Please let me know when this goes to FAC. Finetooth (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as ever, for the extremely helpful review. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)