The article was promoted by Laser brain 22:45, 8 February 2011 [1].
Adelaide leak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
In January 1933, during the notorious Bodyline cricket tour, Bill Woodfull, the Australian captain was struck over the heart by a cricket ball. The English team managers later went to sympathise and were snubbed as Woodfull deplored the English tactics. Someone leaked the incident to the press and all hell broke loose over the tactics being used and that the whistle had been blown. The two main suspects continued to accuse each other for the rest of their lives. Although this is a cricket article, there are no stats in it or much cricket actually! It's all about the people involved, and how much they hated each other! It is currently a GA and was peer reviewed by Brianboulton. Any comments very much appreciated. -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Support: I gave this article an extensive peer review. It is in my view one of the more interesting cricket articles because it focusses not on dreary match details - who scored what, who went in first, etc - but on the surprising, small-minded, mean-spirited grudge-bearing natures of some of the game's biggest names, who 50 years later were still squabbling about who said what to whom and when, all over an exchange of words in an Adelaide dressing room. The modern reaction to all this is likly to be "what a bunch of self-important w***kers!" A great read, if somewhat disillusioning. I will do a sources review later. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Support I gave this a read through when it was up for a peer review, very engaging and interesting. Provides great detail in the relationship between the countries during this conterversal series. Definatly worth it. KnowIG ( talk) 20:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Support I did the GA review for this. At the time I thought it had an FA in it and it's great to see the article has since improved even more through a peer review. I've just had another read-through and I'm very happy to support. I fully agree with Brianboulton about this being a very interesting article. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Sources review: Ref. 71 "Haigh and Frith" not defined in the bibliography. Otherwise all sources look good, spotchecks OK.
Brianboulton (
talk) 13:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. A few external redirects which may lead to link rot, see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. -- Pres N 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Not quite there yet in terms of smooth prose. Not opposing, but still finding a few issues when I look. Tony (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Here are examples from the top. reply
Never commented at one of these, but I've had a look at the FA criteria and I would have to say support (for whatever it's worth from someone who has never written so much as a GA). Very interesting read, seems to meet the criteria. A couple of questions though:
Not entirely happy with this one, but not opposing. Tony (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Laser brain 22:45, 8 February 2011 [1].
Adelaide leak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
In January 1933, during the notorious Bodyline cricket tour, Bill Woodfull, the Australian captain was struck over the heart by a cricket ball. The English team managers later went to sympathise and were snubbed as Woodfull deplored the English tactics. Someone leaked the incident to the press and all hell broke loose over the tactics being used and that the whistle had been blown. The two main suspects continued to accuse each other for the rest of their lives. Although this is a cricket article, there are no stats in it or much cricket actually! It's all about the people involved, and how much they hated each other! It is currently a GA and was peer reviewed by Brianboulton. Any comments very much appreciated. -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Support: I gave this article an extensive peer review. It is in my view one of the more interesting cricket articles because it focusses not on dreary match details - who scored what, who went in first, etc - but on the surprising, small-minded, mean-spirited grudge-bearing natures of some of the game's biggest names, who 50 years later were still squabbling about who said what to whom and when, all over an exchange of words in an Adelaide dressing room. The modern reaction to all this is likly to be "what a bunch of self-important w***kers!" A great read, if somewhat disillusioning. I will do a sources review later. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Support I gave this a read through when it was up for a peer review, very engaging and interesting. Provides great detail in the relationship between the countries during this conterversal series. Definatly worth it. KnowIG ( talk) 20:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Support I did the GA review for this. At the time I thought it had an FA in it and it's great to see the article has since improved even more through a peer review. I've just had another read-through and I'm very happy to support. I fully agree with Brianboulton about this being a very interesting article. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Sources review: Ref. 71 "Haigh and Frith" not defined in the bibliography. Otherwise all sources look good, spotchecks OK.
Brianboulton (
talk) 13:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. A few external redirects which may lead to link rot, see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. -- Pres N 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Not quite there yet in terms of smooth prose. Not opposing, but still finding a few issues when I look. Tony (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Here are examples from the top. reply
Never commented at one of these, but I've had a look at the FA criteria and I would have to say support (for whatever it's worth from someone who has never written so much as a GA). Very interesting read, seems to meet the criteria. A couple of questions though:
Not entirely happy with this one, but not opposing. Tony (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply