This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Laurie Nash has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He played in two Tests, and one of them was a dreadful sticky, in which he took 5/22, which was on a par with South Africa's 20/81. This is skewing his stats (apart from the fact we don't know if he could have sustained the 5/104 odd for any lenght of time either) and I think maybe the stat shouldn't be in the lead because it can be misleading. It would be similar to saying that Harvey has a 100% win rate as captain, he only played in one Test. YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I nominated this article and unfortunately I will be away on business for two weeks. All going well I will return the weekend of 7 November. If you're looking to review this article, feel free to kick back until my return when I can give the review my full attention, cheers. -- Roisterer ( talk) 11:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: WFCforLife ( talk) 02:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've got a bit of experience at WP:FLC, but this is my first GA review. I feel I'm ready. As a starting point I think this will pass criteria 2, 5 and 6 once the following are addressed:
Done I de-italicised ref 61, which was a mistake.
Done To be on the safe side, I added a full stop to the end of every caption.
I don't have any significant concerns about 1, 3 and 4, and the issues I'm likely to raise tomorrow will probably be of a similar nature to the ones above. As an indicator, the prose is of a very good standard, but that's no excuse for me not to give the review it deserves.
I've got this watched, and I intend to be back tomorrow with the rest of the feedback. Just in case though, let me know if I take more than a day or so to reply to anything. Regards, WFCforLife ( talk) 02:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here are the things I've spotted in the prose. The very fact that I've gone into this sort of detail is testament to how good the prose as a whole is. It certainly covers the right things, with the right weight. It's my first review so sorry if some of these are a little pedantic, and feel free to correct me if I've made any errors.
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done There are references to both his footballing and cricketing careers.
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done I hope what I've done is ok - I didn't want to have to spend too much time trying to explain the significance of ten wickets.
Done
Done changed so that it's consistent (I hadn't realised I'd used two different symbols)
Done
Good work. I'm afraid I'm busier than I had expected this week. I don't forsee any problems in promoting, but it would be wrong of me to do it without going through the changes and having a last quick read through. Any changes that needed to be made on that last read I would do myself, unless it's something major that I've missed. I promise that this will happen within the next 72 hours, just thought I should keep you up to date. WFCforLife ( talk) 04:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I've promoted the article. You might want to see at WP:CRICKET or WP:AFL whether they believe the article is close to meeting the FA criteria, and at that stage consider a peer review or FAC. Personally I believe it isn't too far off, and that with a bit of proof reading and agreement at those wikiprojects that everything is covered with the right weight this would have a reasonable chance. Well done! WFCforLife ( talk) 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laurie Nash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Laurie Nash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Laurie Nash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Laurie Nash has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He played in two Tests, and one of them was a dreadful sticky, in which he took 5/22, which was on a par with South Africa's 20/81. This is skewing his stats (apart from the fact we don't know if he could have sustained the 5/104 odd for any lenght of time either) and I think maybe the stat shouldn't be in the lead because it can be misleading. It would be similar to saying that Harvey has a 100% win rate as captain, he only played in one Test. YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I nominated this article and unfortunately I will be away on business for two weeks. All going well I will return the weekend of 7 November. If you're looking to review this article, feel free to kick back until my return when I can give the review my full attention, cheers. -- Roisterer ( talk) 11:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: WFCforLife ( talk) 02:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've got a bit of experience at WP:FLC, but this is my first GA review. I feel I'm ready. As a starting point I think this will pass criteria 2, 5 and 6 once the following are addressed:
Done I de-italicised ref 61, which was a mistake.
Done To be on the safe side, I added a full stop to the end of every caption.
I don't have any significant concerns about 1, 3 and 4, and the issues I'm likely to raise tomorrow will probably be of a similar nature to the ones above. As an indicator, the prose is of a very good standard, but that's no excuse for me not to give the review it deserves.
I've got this watched, and I intend to be back tomorrow with the rest of the feedback. Just in case though, let me know if I take more than a day or so to reply to anything. Regards, WFCforLife ( talk) 02:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here are the things I've spotted in the prose. The very fact that I've gone into this sort of detail is testament to how good the prose as a whole is. It certainly covers the right things, with the right weight. It's my first review so sorry if some of these are a little pedantic, and feel free to correct me if I've made any errors.
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done There are references to both his footballing and cricketing careers.
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done I hope what I've done is ok - I didn't want to have to spend too much time trying to explain the significance of ten wickets.
Done
Done changed so that it's consistent (I hadn't realised I'd used two different symbols)
Done
Good work. I'm afraid I'm busier than I had expected this week. I don't forsee any problems in promoting, but it would be wrong of me to do it without going through the changes and having a last quick read through. Any changes that needed to be made on that last read I would do myself, unless it's something major that I've missed. I promise that this will happen within the next 72 hours, just thought I should keep you up to date. WFCforLife ( talk) 04:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I've promoted the article. You might want to see at WP:CRICKET or WP:AFL whether they believe the article is close to meeting the FA criteria, and at that stage consider a peer review or FAC. Personally I believe it isn't too far off, and that with a bit of proof reading and agreement at those wikiprojects that everything is covered with the right weight this would have a reasonable chance. Well done! WFCforLife ( talk) 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laurie Nash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Laurie Nash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Laurie Nash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)