Wikipedia:Peer review/Leg before wicket/archive1

Leg before wicket
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC but I'm not too sure about it. It's rather a technical article and I wonder how accessible it is to the general reader. Does it make sense, or does it need to be simplified further. If so, is it possible to do so and keep it at the required level of comprehensiveness and prose? And is the prose too dry and technical? It's rather different is this one, so any suggestions (even if that suggestion is never to go anywhere FAC with something like this!) gratefully received.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492
Images
 * File:Leg before wicket.jpg is fine
 * File:Cricket - Wickets.svg looks okay, but seems difficult to follow. Perhaps having no text would be helpful.
 * File:Ranji 1897 page 215 Shrewsbury playing back.jpg - When did Caldwell die (if available?); if he died after 1943 the image would not be PD in the source country
 * File:Bob Wyatt Cigarette Card.jpg looks fine
 * Having alt text might be a good idea.
 * You shouldn't force sizes. Using "upright" will make an image smaller, but still allow them to scale.
 * I'm afraid that svg file is beyond my technical capabilities, and I would have no idea how to remove the text. Added alt text to the last image. A little bit of OR reveals that Caldwell died in 1915, so we're fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:LAB could help for the SVG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Prose
 * the effects it has upon how cricket is played - Feels awkward, perhaps avoid "how cricket is played"?
 * Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is adjudged the right word here?
 * Yes; for some reason, it is never "judged". Or maybe just in the books I read! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I followed the first paragraph of Definition fairly well, until the last sentence. "no ball" may require a little extrapolation
 * Hmm, tricky that one. It's pretty straightforward for cricketers. Does it read any better now? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What is "off stump"?
 * Added link. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * swinging through the air - Huh? Like, rocking, or ?
 * Added a link and reworded a little to clarify. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A link may be enough, because moving ... well, the ball is always moving after being thrown. Moving forward, at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, just went for the link. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * the ball strikes the batsman without pitching, - For a person more familiar with baseball than cricket, "Pitching" has the connotation of "throwing" (c.e. "pitcher") instead of what you seem to mean (hitting the pitch). A link to the glossary, perhaps?
 * OK, I've added a link. Also, as we had the two cricket meanings of pitch in the same sentence, I've taken a bit out of this and created a note to explain "pitch in line". Does this work, or is it better in the main text?


 * Is all-caps LBW more standard, or is lowercase lbw?
 * There is no real standard, but I've gone for lowercase. The one uppercase was given in that form in the quote, but for consistency, I've changed it to lower case. Is this change ok from an MOS viewpoint? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, as we have to keep the English variant as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, put back to be safe. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * trouble often arose - Such as? Any riots?
 * Yes! The source is vague, but I think I could root one out if you really wanted. However, I realised that I'd slightly got this wrong and have reworded it a little as this trouble was not exclusively the concern of touring teams, but could happen in any situation. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Skipping ahead...
 * Can barely understand the first paragraph of Trends and studies... a lot of specific terminology there.
 * Could you be more specific? As a cricketer, it looks fine! I can't see the wood for the trees! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The biggest one is "receive the benefit of lbw decisions", for me at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Got that one. Any better? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * One umpire in many Test - missing a word?
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll try to get some more tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll owe you big time for this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * does not include a leg before wicket rule. - You've already used lbw above, do you need to spell it out again?
 * Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Cricket bat should be linked on the first use (which would be the first section)
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (batsman on strike) - Strike being? For Americans, strike has some distinctly baseball meanings...
 * Tried "batsman receiving the ball". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Still missing alt text
 * Which image? I make it that they all have alt text (and so does the tool on this page). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Geeze I'm blind. I'm so used to seeing the alt text before captions. Scratch that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Criticism [of lbw laws] was heightened by the increased quality and reliability of cricket pitches which made batting easier, led to higher scores and created a perceived imbalance in the game. Pad-play, according to commentators, was another factor which was unfair towards bowlers. - Second sentence seems redundant to me, but others may disagree.
 * Yes, removed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * one county representative - Who?
 * I could name him, but his name doesn't mean anything even to me, and I'm a bit of an obsessive. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Might be worth including in hidden text (just in case his name means something to someone)
 * OK, did this, and for the prominent cricketers below. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "a batsman shall be out if with any part of his person, being in the straight line from wicket to wicket, he stop a ball which in the opinion of the umpire would have hit the wicket." - Feels like you're missing an "s" at "stop".
 * No, it's a quote and the language is slightly archaic. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So the lack of an s is in the original? Might be worth noting in hidden text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * several prominent cricketers - Such as?
 * Again, I'm not sure the names would mean much. I sort-of know two of three mentioned in the source; they were prominent at the time but pretty meaningless now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * with any part of his person he stops the ball, -> with any part of his person [the batsman] stops the ball,
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This trend was replicated in international cricket, - Not anymore? That question goes for most of this paragraph.
 * Sorted. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Bodyline - caps? Also, might need explaining.
 * Opinion is divided on caps, but it is common in many sources. I'm reluctant to begin an explanation of another convoluted cricket phenomenon here as it is only incidentally relevant. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I was thinking that we should be standard with the bodyline article, which uses a lowercase b.
 * I've had this little debate before! My feeling is that the article is wrong; many (but not all) of the sources, including the "standard work" use Bodyline. There is some argument over whether this is correct of not. I can change it if it is a problem, but I'm of the capital B brigade! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, gotcha. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * padding up using pads, - Repetition
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * leg stump, - ?
 * Now linked on first mention. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * but in 1937 the experimental law became part of the Laws of Cricket. - relation with the Australians in the first paragraph?
 * Australians in which paragraph? (If this refers to the Australian reluctance to bring in the law, the change in the laws superseded their hesitance). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's it. Do any of the sources support you saying it directly? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much all the sources give. The Australians didn't like it, but it became law. No further comment, and nothing which explicitly says "tough!'. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * the prevalent and unpopular tactic which involved off spin and inswing bowlers aiming at leg stump with fielders concentrated on the leg side. - This will be very difficult to follow for non-cricket fans.
 * Hmmm. No easy way to explain this one without a long technical commentary, but it is kind of important. Not sure, let me ponder. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather than alter the lbw law to combat the problem, the MCC changed the laws to reduce the number of fielders allowed on the leg side. - How does/did this affect lbw?
 * It doesn't except that the obvious solution was to change the law, but the MCC instead chose to mess around with rules for field placings. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No shot - not quite clear what this is from the title, not explained anywhere in the article.
 * I can't quite lever it in to the right place, so changed the wording to "no stroke" which is taken directly from a wording of the laws. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Now, a batsman would be lbw - Why "now"? "Under this new law", perhaps?
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * for running the international game, - game or games?
 * Game singular in this sense: a synonym for international cricket. It's a bit journalese, so I've reworded to "running international cricket". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * increased the trend - sounds odd
 * Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Any statistics on the effectiveness? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you mean by effectiveness here. I suspect I'm statisticked out, though. Not much else out there on analysis. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the third umpire and the DRS system. Do they stop cricketers from using pad-play? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not as yet. I'd imagine it will happen soon, and I could probably do some ugly OR on it, but not for this article. Everything about DRS is basically just the gut feeling of commentators and journalists. No statistical analysis yet; at least, not that I have seen. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Big, big thank you for this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sorry if some of my questions are unclear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments
Brianboulton comments: I will wait until Crisco has finished before I weigh in, but I'd just like to say something about the opening paragraph. I said in our earlier talkpage discussion that I thought you had oversimplified your basic explanation of lbw. I think, now, you may have overcomplicated the matter. I had something in mind such as:

"Leg before wicket, or lbw, is one of the ways in which a batsman can be dismissed in the sport of cricket. The basis of the law is that, following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire will rule a batsman out lbw if the ball would have struck the wicket but was intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat. However, the decision will be subject to a number of playing circumstances, as a result of which the lbw law is widely misunderstood by many of the general public."

I will return later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Adopted this wording now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine: the final wording may need a little more tweaking, as this was my first attempt, but the principle is right. Brianboulton (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note I've tweaked it again, maybe not for the last time. As Crisco appears to have finished, I'll give the article some review time now. Comments to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

– and slim pickings it is, too, from a pleasingly well-presented article. I've done about two-thirds, the rest will follow tomorrow:
 * Here we go
 * Definition


 * Perhaps add a note clarifying that the MCC was (and still is, I think), the accepted framer and arbiter of the laws of cricket.
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how helpful the diagram is to the uninitiated. It doesn't really have enough detail on it to help a relatively uninitiated reader (my daughter, for example) to decipher the accompanying text which is necessarily complex. I am not at all sure how to make the diagram more helpful, but it may be worth some thought.
 * I'm seeing if it is possible to remove the writing for a start. I think we need something, but am not quite sure a) what the something should be or b) how to go about it (it's way, way beyond my technical capabilities). As a last resort, I'll remove the image. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the formula: "According to David Fraser..." is appropriate here, since what he writes is a fact rather than an opinion. I would go for: "In his book (give title), David Law writes that..." etc
 * The final two sentences are connected, and should be separated by a semicolon rather than a full stop.
 * Both these done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Controversy and attempted reform


 * "At the Special General Meeting..." → "At a Special General Meeting..."
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "the proposed new law was trialled" - that is American English. BritEng would be "tried out"
 * I'd never even thought of that before. A shame, as it kind of works. I've gone for "tried": does that work? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alteration to the law


 * "Fred Root also criticised the tactic of padding up, and the number of batsmen who refused to play shots..." Not quite right. Perhaps: ...and the increasing extent to which batsmen were reusing to play shots..."
 * Second paragraph: reference to "rules" - should this be "laws"?
 * "Between 1929 and 1933, the county authorities introduced an experiment...", No, they introduced it in 1929 and presumably withdrew it in 1933. Suggest replace "introduced" with "conducted".
 * Is it possible to say whether this experimental period produce any significant difference in the proportion of lbw dismissals? Likewise, did the 1935 change increase the number of lbws?
 * All the above done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The "l. b. w." format may be how the Times printed it, but it looks ridiculous. Do we have to follow suit?
 * Good question. I asked Crisco above, and he seems to think that we do. But I'm inclined to read the MOS as suggesting it would be fine. So, I've changed it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Rest to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My remaining comments:
 * Playing no stroke


 * "owing to more difficult and unpredictable pitches which made batting much harder". This begs the question: why did pitches become more difficult and unpredictable at this time? I think it might have been something to do with changes in the laws relating to covering of wickets, but that's just a hunch.
 * For some reason, the quality of pitches just plummeted in the 50s. A look at the first class averages compared to, say, the 30s or 90s is interesting. I suspect it was deliberate for "result" wickets, but I may be wrong. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This section is quite difficult to follow; the general reader will struggle to perceive the differences between the 1969–70 wording and that adopted in 1972. Would it be possible to emphasise this difference by appropriate use of, say, italics? The other thing is that I would leave out the unnecessary detail that the 1980 revision was the fifth such, and that a further unrelated revision took place in 2000.
 * I've tried to point out the differences a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Effects of technology


 * "This trend is replicated in international cricket": I rather though the trend began in international cricket (because of the use of technology), and was replicated lower down.
 * Perhaps, but I have a slight synthesis problem here. The article by Miller exclusively looks at the increasing number of lbws in county cricket, and he talks about a trend. The international comment comes from a source which does not have an analysis. Saying that the county trend replicated the Test trend is reaching a bit given the sources. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The last sentence of the first paragraph has three mentions of "technology" and other redundant words. I suggest: "However, the use of on-field technology has proved controversial; some critics regard it as more reliable than human judgement, while others believe that the umpire is better placed to make the decision"
 * Used your wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * On DRS, is it worth mentioning that India has thus far rejected its use?
 * I'm inclined to say not; that would be more for the DRS article. I'm not sure it impacts enough on lbw. But let me ponder... Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Trends and studies


 * "Between 1920 and 2010, the percentage of batsmen dismissed lbw almost doubled." This point is deducible from the figures just given - is it necessary to repeat the point?
 * Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "less likely to be out lbw when batting and more dismiss batsmen lbw when bowling". A word or two missing here. Also, does this business about umpires favouring captains really represent a trend, i.e. a movement from one state to another? From the figures you quote, 'twas ever thus, perhaps because captains report on umpires' performances after matches.
 * Fixed wording. I cut the figures and left the "favoured captains" info. It's not a trend, but I think it's worth including. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The more I read this section, the faster my head began to spin. It seems that studies have discerned so many trends, counter-trends, trends-within-rends etc that no clear picture emerges. I wonder if it is possible to simplify these facts?
 * Yes, you should see the actual studies. I once studied statistics (the mathematical, not cricket, variety), and reading these reminded me why I've avoided them ever since. I've simplified a little bit, but I think there are some important points there, and I'm not sure they can be simplified without being misrepresented. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

All in all, though, I believe you have dealt well with a difficult and technical subject. Only in a few places did I find myself scratching my head a bit. On the question of the pitch diagram, if you can outline for me what changes you would like to make to the wording, and what additional symbols etc you wish to include, I will see if I can locate an image-literate editor who may be able to help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. On the image, I think the best bet may be to remove all the wording altogether, and leave it blank. But I've just had a response at the image lab: they did that and now I'll see what else they can do for me! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: one final thing: could you date the Badminton Library image? It looks 1880-ish. (Otherwise our American friends may think that's what present-day cricketers look like). Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! Done. Another cricket editor says that he is put off reading this one because each time he looks at the article he can't believe that the chap played no shot to a ball like that. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments
Giants2008 comments –
 * Definition: In "for example, a batman struck on the head could be lbw", is "batman" supposed to be "batsman" or is this just word variation?
 * Oops! Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Playing no stroke: "the revised wording became an official part of the Laws. The Laws...". Minor, but it would be good to avoid having this repetition from the end of one sentence to the start of another.
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Trends and studies: "A study in 2011 by Douglas Miller shows that In English County Cricket". Two words ("In" and "Cricket") are overcapitalized here. You could argue that "County" shouldn't be capitalized either; it isn't in a later usage.
 * Agree, and removed all capitals. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is necessary or not, but it would be nice to have a source for reference 1. I can't imagine that a cricket writer would have a hard time sourcing something that appears to be a basic concept.
 * Found one. Ref added. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note 2: Is a hyphen missing in "left hand"?
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note 3: There's an excess space before the period.
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Page numbers are missing from ref 27.
 * Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In ref 53, The Guardian (a print publication) should be italicized.
 * In this case, it is not a print publication, it was published on the Guardian blog. In this case, I don't think italics are needed, but I could be wrong. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see publication information for the Crouch book in the bibliography.
 * OK, I'd love to make an excuse or blame someone else, but can't. Perhaps someone can explain to me why I put Crouch when the author is Ringrose? Sorted now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See also should be moved from the bottom of the article to before the notes. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On balance, not sure we need it at all as both articles are linked within this. But moved for now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SEEALSO you probably don't need 'em if the links are in the text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, it's gone. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)