Talk:Jack Crossland/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 06:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Any image for the lede?

Unfortunately not; can't find a picture of him at all! Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may link English and Nottinghamshire

I linked Nottinghamshire, but not English, per WP:OVERLINK. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"His best year was in 1882,..." no need of "in"

Fixed. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the article you are saying that his bowling average is 10.95 whereas in the infobox it is 12.48.

Fixed. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early career[edit]

eight wickets and conceded 88 → eight wickets and conceded eighty-eight........... as you have done in the next sentence
twenty eight → twenty-eight

I've made this consistent, but in the other way, so all examples should now be of the form "eight for 88". Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link innings

Linked. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire professional[edit]

Crossland's performances for Enfield ... Whay is Enfield?

The cricket club he played for. Earlier in the article this is mentioned: "Crossland first gained employment as a professional cricketer in 1876, with Enfield Cricket Club." Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

twenty six → twenty-six

See above. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....at the Oval.[15] → I think this should be The Oval

I know that the cricket style guide suggests that, but it's just bad grammar, and I disagree. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...touring Australians,[17] In the ..... In should be in

Tidied up a little. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

claiming seven wickets for 72.[20] → "seventy-two" for consistency

See above. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing controversies[edit]

...he was never no balled by the umpires.[8] → it was never given no ball by the umpires.

I'm not convinced that is an improvement, though I can see your point. I have reworded it, how is it now? Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...eight for 57... for consistency "fifty-seven"

See above. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A link to "gentlemen's"

Linked. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Termination of county cricket career[edit]

he took four for 52 and three for 51 .....→ You are not consistant about numbering throughout the article.

See above. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...at Old Trafford. → at the Old Trafford.

Old Trafford is just referred to as such, without the definite article. It would be "the Old Trafford Cricket Ground" though.

Later life and career[edit]

...after his explusion.... → "expulsion"

I thought it'd be a good cross between expulsion and explosion! Fixed. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...bowlers came to a close,... no need of "a"

I disagree, in fact, I appear to have actually missed an "a" earlier in the sentence, which I've fixed. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very smoothly written, I really appreciate your work! Zia Khan 06:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as always, for your feedback and review. I think I have dealt with all of your comments, feel free to ping me if I've missed anything. I look forward to any further comments you might provide. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link CricketArchive

Linked. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are refs 49 and 51 in Italic

Because they are books. It's how the template renders it. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In ref 49, what "(1980) and [1899]" means?

It means that it is a 1980 publication of a book first published in 1899. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final review[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a: b:
Conclusion: Promoted to GA status, good work. Keep it up! Zia Khan 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pass/Fail: