1947 English cricket season was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 10, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Surprising that this article is assessed a start-class only. We have updated all English season articles with a new template and this one is standout. Finding these criteria for a B-class assessment, I venture to re-assess:
Thinking the article should go to good or featured assessment next. Naz | talk | contribs 07:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes ( talk · contribs) 15:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The immediate concern here is who can help if I have any issues or questions!? The nominator was recently banned from the site. He had introduced some controversial images to this but otherwise did little with the article, anyway. The key contributor was User:BillDRyan who has been inactive since 2014. I'll do a review but unless there is someone in the cricket project who can answer any questions arising, this could be heading for certain fail. Should be able to study it in next two or three days. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes ( talk) 18:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset and Sarastro1, thank you both very much for your advice and help. I'll try to do it justice but it's definitely going to be a fail, so many issues arising. I'm here for footy and history mainly but I have a friend who owns post-war Wisdens so I thought: "Hey, I can review this one with Wisden". Never expected the proverbial can of worms to open!! It looks to me like Bill DRyan was "getting there" when he left the site but the banned user just went ahead and nominated it without giving any thought to finishing the job, apart from adding some questionable images. Leave it with me to have a go at a full review report because it will be good practice for me to deal with a failed nomination. Thank you again, both. Boca Jóvenes ( talk) 10:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Having reviewed the whole article now, it fails GA. The findings are as follows and there is a list of improvements needed at the end of this section. Please note that the main reasons are the unsuitable introduction and the massive number of sentences, quotations and paragraohs without references. I also have doubts about undue weighting, as explained below, in the use of different sources.
Well written:
Narrative is very well written but the intro falls well short of the WP:LEAD standard and that is a major reason for GA failure.
Verifiable with no original research:
Many more citations needed throughout and far too many to justify placing the review on hold.
Broad in its coverage:
Certainly meets "broad in coverage". There is substantial detail but it does retain good focus. The article is strong in this criterion and is a mine of information about the subject.
Neutral:
No bias observed.
Stable:
It is stable.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
Illustration was a serious issue. All images were removed to review it without nominator inputs.
Lets start at the very beginning, a very good place to start. The introduction is too brief and must be expanded so that it provides a summary of the whole article.
Topics to be mentioned in the introduction: the background to the season (weather and post-war austerity), main honours, England in 1947, the South African tour, a summary of the Test series, a summary of the County Championship and (a shorter one) of the Minor Counties Championship, the tied matches, other notable fixtures (the University Match, Gentlemen v Players and North v South), the Wisden Cricketers of the Year and some of the more notable achievements (especially Compton and Edrich). Yes, some of these are already there but some is not enough.
There are a large number of citations needed which I'm flagging individually. Quotations must be directly referenced, even if the reference given at the end of the paragraph includes the quotation.
One curiosity I have is the team called "The Rest". Who were they, whom did they represent (e.g., MCC) and can there be a link to anything about them in Wikipedia?
Why is Playfair the favoured sourcee when surely Wisden carries most weight and credibility?
Why is CricketArchive the favoured online source ahead of ESPNcricinfo?
Citation of online sources is not done according to site standard (i.e., "cite web |url= |title=").
The above must be addressed if the article is ever to have any chance of becoming a GA. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes ( talk) 19:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
1947 English cricket season was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 10, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Surprising that this article is assessed a start-class only. We have updated all English season articles with a new template and this one is standout. Finding these criteria for a B-class assessment, I venture to re-assess:
Thinking the article should go to good or featured assessment next. Naz | talk | contribs 07:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes ( talk · contribs) 15:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The immediate concern here is who can help if I have any issues or questions!? The nominator was recently banned from the site. He had introduced some controversial images to this but otherwise did little with the article, anyway. The key contributor was User:BillDRyan who has been inactive since 2014. I'll do a review but unless there is someone in the cricket project who can answer any questions arising, this could be heading for certain fail. Should be able to study it in next two or three days. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes ( talk) 18:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset and Sarastro1, thank you both very much for your advice and help. I'll try to do it justice but it's definitely going to be a fail, so many issues arising. I'm here for footy and history mainly but I have a friend who owns post-war Wisdens so I thought: "Hey, I can review this one with Wisden". Never expected the proverbial can of worms to open!! It looks to me like Bill DRyan was "getting there" when he left the site but the banned user just went ahead and nominated it without giving any thought to finishing the job, apart from adding some questionable images. Leave it with me to have a go at a full review report because it will be good practice for me to deal with a failed nomination. Thank you again, both. Boca Jóvenes ( talk) 10:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Having reviewed the whole article now, it fails GA. The findings are as follows and there is a list of improvements needed at the end of this section. Please note that the main reasons are the unsuitable introduction and the massive number of sentences, quotations and paragraohs without references. I also have doubts about undue weighting, as explained below, in the use of different sources.
Well written:
Narrative is very well written but the intro falls well short of the WP:LEAD standard and that is a major reason for GA failure.
Verifiable with no original research:
Many more citations needed throughout and far too many to justify placing the review on hold.
Broad in its coverage:
Certainly meets "broad in coverage". There is substantial detail but it does retain good focus. The article is strong in this criterion and is a mine of information about the subject.
Neutral:
No bias observed.
Stable:
It is stable.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
Illustration was a serious issue. All images were removed to review it without nominator inputs.
Lets start at the very beginning, a very good place to start. The introduction is too brief and must be expanded so that it provides a summary of the whole article.
Topics to be mentioned in the introduction: the background to the season (weather and post-war austerity), main honours, England in 1947, the South African tour, a summary of the Test series, a summary of the County Championship and (a shorter one) of the Minor Counties Championship, the tied matches, other notable fixtures (the University Match, Gentlemen v Players and North v South), the Wisden Cricketers of the Year and some of the more notable achievements (especially Compton and Edrich). Yes, some of these are already there but some is not enough.
There are a large number of citations needed which I'm flagging individually. Quotations must be directly referenced, even if the reference given at the end of the paragraph includes the quotation.
One curiosity I have is the team called "The Rest". Who were they, whom did they represent (e.g., MCC) and can there be a link to anything about them in Wikipedia?
Why is Playfair the favoured sourcee when surely Wisden carries most weight and credibility?
Why is CricketArchive the favoured online source ahead of ESPNcricinfo?
Citation of online sources is not done according to site standard (i.e., "cite web |url= |title=").
The above must be addressed if the article is ever to have any chance of becoming a GA. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes ( talk) 19:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)