Adelaide leak is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mkativerata ( talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Just starting the review now. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
All looks good - only little comments. I should note that I haven't checked sources, I don't have ready access to any of them. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments on the first couple of sections are below, the rest will follow:
I wonder whether there could be opportunities to pare down this section a bit. At this stage, one has to go more than halfway through the article's prose before hitting the subject matter, being the leak. On the other hand, I do recognise the importance of setting out the involvement of all the key actors (Wooffull, Bradman, Fingleton, Warner, Jardine, etc).
Cheers -- Mkativerata ( talk) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like Bradman died before Firth published his book. But did Firth or Mant ever ask Bradman about the info from Helen? Also is the timeline right? It sounds like Corbett died in 1944 and Fingleton in 1978 first said Bradman was the source. But then Bradman with Michael Page made a deal out of the fact the accusation only came after Corbett's death (when he could no longer dispute the claim) even if specifically it was ~34 years after that death (which to me anyway, makes it seem less dubious then if it was held for 40 years and then revealed a year after the only other person who definitely knew died). Nil Einne ( talk) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
A huge amount of this article just rehashes what is in the bodyline article - can they not be merged, or can this article be cut back so it focuses more on the leak? Interplanet Janet ( talk) 07:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:SIZE, particularly the section on splitting. -- Dweller ( talk) 19:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Leg-theory bowling was a legal and viable form of bowling, that FE Root first developed in 1910/11. The Australians had used it too, their complaint as such was that in Larwood & Voce, the MCC (not England) had 2 bowlers fast and accurate enough to use it effectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.224.158 ( talk) 13:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"From their first meeting while playing together for Victoria"
Surely this should be NSW? Neither of the two (Bradman or Fingleton) played for Victoria. Tigerman2005 ( talk) 00:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This is by far the most interesting and unexpected FA I have ever come across. Kudos, not just to those who contributed, but to those who pushed it through the queue to appear on the Main Page. 50.193.171.69 ( talk) 03:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I dont understand why this is significant and why a big deal was made. All because Woodfull rudely responded and "disrespected"(if you even want to call it that) Warner? A big deal was made because of this????? I read about worst things daily in the sports column. I dont get why such a big deal was made over such an insignificant incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.3.79 ( talk) 08:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand how it managed to get FA. When i first accessed the article, I was expecting it to mention how the guy got hit in the heart, went to the dressing room and passed away from the hit, and not a whole journalist uproar. It is the weirdest article I've ever seen.-- Mjs1991 ( talk) 10:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
N-HH, the Bodyline article is a Featured Article. Including the detail from here would cause it to fall below FA standards, as it would concentrate too much unduly on one very controversial day in a very controversial few months. As this incident has notability in and of itself, a daughter article was not only a good idea, but it's been done very well - to the extent that peers have deemed it to be of Featured quality, too. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor has twice changed all the instances of "Bodyline" to "bodyline". I have reverted for a second time, but will not do so again and would prefer to discuss here. Just as a quick guide, we have Bodyline, Bodyline and Bodyline] on the internet, and in Frith's book, he capitalises, as does Fingleton in 1946 (but not in 1981). Douglas uses "bodyline". At the very least, there is no right answer and I would prefer "Bodyline", but I am happy to discuss and if anyone reverts, I will not touch it. It's not really that big a deal, and I don't think we need one of those odd capitalisation debates that happen from time to time! Sarastro1 ( talk) 17:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As someone unfamiliar with cricket, I don't understand what "bodyline" is or why it is controversial. The article explains it as bowling the "ball roughly on the line of leg stump", which means absolutely nothing to me. Without explaining what bodyline is and why it was controversial, none of the subsequent article makes sense. Per WP:JARGON: "Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it." Since Woodfull was hit with the ball, I'm guessing that bodyline means something like throwing it towards the batter's body, or throwing it in a way that it might bounce towards the batter's body. Please add some explanation so that it is clear. Thanks. Kaldari ( talk) 18:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict):Short of explaining what stumps are and how they are used in cricket, and what bowling is, I think that is beyond the scope of this article. Both leg stump and bodyline are linked to other articles. While I agree that jargon should be minimised, particularly in sport, I think anything further would get a little silly here and distract from the main point of the article. And to be honest, you have pretty much hit the nail on the head with your guess. The other key bits of the explanation in the article (and the key points to its importance) are "The deliveries were often short-pitched with four or five fielders close by on the leg side waiting to catch deflections off the bat. The tactics were difficult for batsmen to counter and were designed to be intimidatory." (And what fun this TFA is turning out to be!) Sarastro1 ( talk) 18:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Bodyline bowling was so controversial (and clever) because it was explicitly designed to place the batsman in fear of physical danger, without the ability to protect himself without risking his wicket. This is substantially different from the normal usage (which continues to this day) of fast bowling aimed at the batsman's head or chest, because the normal "bouncer" is part of a mixed bag, designed to ensure the batsman can't premeditate his shots/foot placement etc, rather than a relentless barrage. Also, because the normal bouncer is part of a mix, the fielders are not explicitly placed in such a way as to prevent the bat being used to defend the body. Hope that helps. These questions are better aimed at Talk:Bodyline, if that article is deficient, because as stated above, this article is more about the results of Bodyline bowling, than the technicalities of it. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The "References" section is followed by a "Bibliography" section that really should be a sub-section being directly related. Bibliography is sometimes used in biographies (although discouraged) as works or publications. I realize this is not a biography but wonder if "Cited text", "Notes", "Sources", or another choice would be better.
MOS:NOTES states: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications")
.
Otr500 (
talk) 13:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Adelaide leak is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mkativerata ( talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Just starting the review now. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
All looks good - only little comments. I should note that I haven't checked sources, I don't have ready access to any of them. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments on the first couple of sections are below, the rest will follow:
I wonder whether there could be opportunities to pare down this section a bit. At this stage, one has to go more than halfway through the article's prose before hitting the subject matter, being the leak. On the other hand, I do recognise the importance of setting out the involvement of all the key actors (Wooffull, Bradman, Fingleton, Warner, Jardine, etc).
Cheers -- Mkativerata ( talk) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like Bradman died before Firth published his book. But did Firth or Mant ever ask Bradman about the info from Helen? Also is the timeline right? It sounds like Corbett died in 1944 and Fingleton in 1978 first said Bradman was the source. But then Bradman with Michael Page made a deal out of the fact the accusation only came after Corbett's death (when he could no longer dispute the claim) even if specifically it was ~34 years after that death (which to me anyway, makes it seem less dubious then if it was held for 40 years and then revealed a year after the only other person who definitely knew died). Nil Einne ( talk) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
A huge amount of this article just rehashes what is in the bodyline article - can they not be merged, or can this article be cut back so it focuses more on the leak? Interplanet Janet ( talk) 07:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:SIZE, particularly the section on splitting. -- Dweller ( talk) 19:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Leg-theory bowling was a legal and viable form of bowling, that FE Root first developed in 1910/11. The Australians had used it too, their complaint as such was that in Larwood & Voce, the MCC (not England) had 2 bowlers fast and accurate enough to use it effectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.224.158 ( talk) 13:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"From their first meeting while playing together for Victoria"
Surely this should be NSW? Neither of the two (Bradman or Fingleton) played for Victoria. Tigerman2005 ( talk) 00:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This is by far the most interesting and unexpected FA I have ever come across. Kudos, not just to those who contributed, but to those who pushed it through the queue to appear on the Main Page. 50.193.171.69 ( talk) 03:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I dont understand why this is significant and why a big deal was made. All because Woodfull rudely responded and "disrespected"(if you even want to call it that) Warner? A big deal was made because of this????? I read about worst things daily in the sports column. I dont get why such a big deal was made over such an insignificant incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.3.79 ( talk) 08:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand how it managed to get FA. When i first accessed the article, I was expecting it to mention how the guy got hit in the heart, went to the dressing room and passed away from the hit, and not a whole journalist uproar. It is the weirdest article I've ever seen.-- Mjs1991 ( talk) 10:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
N-HH, the Bodyline article is a Featured Article. Including the detail from here would cause it to fall below FA standards, as it would concentrate too much unduly on one very controversial day in a very controversial few months. As this incident has notability in and of itself, a daughter article was not only a good idea, but it's been done very well - to the extent that peers have deemed it to be of Featured quality, too. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor has twice changed all the instances of "Bodyline" to "bodyline". I have reverted for a second time, but will not do so again and would prefer to discuss here. Just as a quick guide, we have Bodyline, Bodyline and Bodyline] on the internet, and in Frith's book, he capitalises, as does Fingleton in 1946 (but not in 1981). Douglas uses "bodyline". At the very least, there is no right answer and I would prefer "Bodyline", but I am happy to discuss and if anyone reverts, I will not touch it. It's not really that big a deal, and I don't think we need one of those odd capitalisation debates that happen from time to time! Sarastro1 ( talk) 17:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As someone unfamiliar with cricket, I don't understand what "bodyline" is or why it is controversial. The article explains it as bowling the "ball roughly on the line of leg stump", which means absolutely nothing to me. Without explaining what bodyline is and why it was controversial, none of the subsequent article makes sense. Per WP:JARGON: "Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it." Since Woodfull was hit with the ball, I'm guessing that bodyline means something like throwing it towards the batter's body, or throwing it in a way that it might bounce towards the batter's body. Please add some explanation so that it is clear. Thanks. Kaldari ( talk) 18:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict):Short of explaining what stumps are and how they are used in cricket, and what bowling is, I think that is beyond the scope of this article. Both leg stump and bodyline are linked to other articles. While I agree that jargon should be minimised, particularly in sport, I think anything further would get a little silly here and distract from the main point of the article. And to be honest, you have pretty much hit the nail on the head with your guess. The other key bits of the explanation in the article (and the key points to its importance) are "The deliveries were often short-pitched with four or five fielders close by on the leg side waiting to catch deflections off the bat. The tactics were difficult for batsmen to counter and were designed to be intimidatory." (And what fun this TFA is turning out to be!) Sarastro1 ( talk) 18:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Bodyline bowling was so controversial (and clever) because it was explicitly designed to place the batsman in fear of physical danger, without the ability to protect himself without risking his wicket. This is substantially different from the normal usage (which continues to this day) of fast bowling aimed at the batsman's head or chest, because the normal "bouncer" is part of a mixed bag, designed to ensure the batsman can't premeditate his shots/foot placement etc, rather than a relentless barrage. Also, because the normal bouncer is part of a mix, the fielders are not explicitly placed in such a way as to prevent the bat being used to defend the body. Hope that helps. These questions are better aimed at Talk:Bodyline, if that article is deficient, because as stated above, this article is more about the results of Bodyline bowling, than the technicalities of it. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The "References" section is followed by a "Bibliography" section that really should be a sub-section being directly related. Bibliography is sometimes used in biographies (although discouraged) as works or publications. I realize this is not a biography but wonder if "Cited text", "Notes", "Sources", or another choice would be better.
MOS:NOTES states: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications")
.
Otr500 (
talk) 13:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)