Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Bradman/archive1

Donald Bradman
This article has been extensively rewritten and re-referenced. I realise that some reviewers may have an issue with its length, but I feel that it falls within the guidelines set at WP:SIZE. I would like reviewers to check the referencing and add cns if necessary.

Cheers,

Phanto282 06:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Well I am rather late after the talk page invite. A random point is that the graph that The RAmbling Man made of the batting averages is POV. The scale starts at 50, so it looks as though Bradman is numerically speaking 5 times better than Pollock. And 10 times better than those who average 5... and so forth
 * Forking - Should not be done on the basis of "controversy" - this is POV forking. They should be forked along topical lines eg Don Bradman as a cricket administrator or Don Bradman as a pos-war cricketer and Early career of Don Bradman and so forth.
 * Content black holes - I do not know the most about holes but one thing that definitely stood out was the lack of discussion about the clashes with Fingleton, O'Reilly etc purported to be due to religion. eg see Bill O'Reilly and Jack Fingleton and the relevant sections that I put in about conflict. This is much discussed. A quick google search with "Bradman" "Fingleton" "O'Reilly" "Catholic" "religion" and their various combos will give many links to articles about sectarianism.
 * All the best, the Kippax and Bradman articles have improved a lot. I should go and do a proper check sometime although I proably won't be able to point out many interesting things.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

''Good point that you raised at PR. Perhaps the Fingleton-O'Reilly v Bradman thing is worth a separate article? IMO, the problems between the two factions were in the nature of a personality clash: basically, Bradman had problems relating to a lot of his contemporaries. This analysis that it was sectarian seems to stem from Charles Williams (ie, "they were met by priests in cassocks"), but his evidence is scant. I'm sure that if O'Reilly or Fingleton believed that Bradman discriminated against them on the basis of religion, they would've said so. Do you have a suggestion as to how to make the controversies fork NPOV? Cheers, Phanto282 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I am not sure that the O'Reilly-Fingleton-McCabe faction was motivated by Irish nationalism or Catholic feeling, but it is a notable hypothesis. Definitely though, the schism probably could do with a start class article where one could state the facts about the existence of tension, the various political incidents like the board meeting and then discuss the various theories being circulated and different people's ideas about the internal team tension and why it arose. Certainly we should not present it as fact that it was sectarian but there are debates by people saying that it was or it wasn't so this is a notable aspect of presenting the support and criticism of the religion theory.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the controversy thing, the general policy is that things like that should not exist. We should not have a controversy article  fork because in the main article we will have topics A, B, C, D and then we have a criticism/controversy section where we have critA, critB, critC...... The ideal way is to have A (inc controversies of A), B (including controversies of B), ..... etc. eg in Greg Chappell the daughter articles should be stuff like Underarm incident, Greg Chappell in World Series Cricket, Greg Chappell as Indian cricket coach, Chappell Ganguly controversy with the controversies integrated into the sections and duaghter articles rather than have a general biography and at the bottom have Controversies of Greg Chappell as a fork and then lump all the criticism of his coaching and tactics together at the bottom. In general we are supposed to divide sections into different events rather than good/bad.  Blnguyen   ( bananabucket ) 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Criticism. Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)