Talk:Bobby Peel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBobby Peel 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 12, 2017.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 23, 2014Good article nomineeListed
March 5, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
March 12, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 12, 2020.
Current status: Featured article


GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bobby Peel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 02:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • "...,and was highly regarded by critics." → and was highly regarded by cricket critics.
  • I think it is fairly self-evident that they would be cricket critics, and I'm not too fond of the alliteration. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and was highly regarded by critics." → well-known
  • It seems I mixed up the text. I meant well known should be "well-known". —Zia Khan 14:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-known and highly regarded are not the same thing; he was highly regarded. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire cricketer[edit]

  • Link "drawn"
  • "At the time, the Yorkshire team was generally inconsistent." In which aspect? They were not playing frequently or else?

Test debut[edit]

  • "...not usually composed exclusively of the best cricketers in England." → Needs inline citation.
  • It is cited at the end of the next sentence; not every sentence needs a citation if they are covered by the next ref. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The previous English tour Australia..." → The previous English tour of Australia ...
  • "Critics considered..." again "Cricket critics considered..."

Home Test matches[edit]

  • "...match figures of 11 for 68." match-figures?
  • I've never seen it hyphenated anywhere else. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...158 runs in his second innings, his maiden first-class hundred." At that time?!
  • You can only have one maiden hundred; your first will always be your first. It is still his maiden hundred 125 years later. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the season, Hawke ended the careers of several players; the Yorkshire president told the committee that the "demon drink" was to blame.[44]" I think this sentence is unrelated to the para?
  • Why? It is about the same season, and relates to the team's underachievement. And it links to Peate's and Peel's dismissals. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian tour of 1894–95[edit]

  • Link to Melbourne Cricket Club
  • "After having five teeth extracted,[60]..." why?
  • ...the fifth day's play, Australia had scored 113 for two,..." We know that Test matches were of 6 days at that time, but most of our reader don't know this, I guess.
  • Actually, in Australia they were timeless and had no limit. Not sure it is worth specifying this, particularly as English Tests were 3-day games. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may link "pair"
  • Link "duck" at the first instance
  • "...and 168 runs at 18.67, placing him sixth in the batting averages.[78]" → ...and scored 168 runs at 18.67, placing him sixth in the batting averages.[78]
  • The whole sentence reads "Peel ended the series with 27 wickets at 26.70, second in the averages behind Tom Richardson, and 168 runs at 18.67, placing him sixth in the batting averages." We don't need "scored" as it makes sense without. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... to be eighth in the averages,..." → "to be" is redundant
  • No, the sentence doesn't make sense without it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final seasons[edit]

  • "Against Warwickshire, he scored 210 not out, the highest first-class score of his career,..." in an innings?

Later life[edit]

  • The first para ends up with 1904 and the following para starts in 1898?
  • Took out the 1904 part as I'm not sure how important it is. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilfred Rhodes → Rhodes

Technique and personality[edit]

  • His main rival as a spinner and for a place in the England team was Johnny Briggs; Peel bowled faster, which made him harder to hit,[3] Archie MacLaren, who captained England towards the end of Peel's career and was a team-mate and captain of Briggs, described Peel as "the cleverest bowler of my time". → a very long sentence
  • "He batted in the middle order,[84] including when he played for England, when he most often batted at number six,[17] and often effective when other batsmen had failed.[3]" no need of "when he"

Images[edit]

  • All the images should have a proper ALT text.
  • Unless I'm missing something, they all have alt text already. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A well-written article! I'll put this one on hold, and will be back to this as the above concerns resolve. —Zia Khan 02:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should be everything. Thanks for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may link ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive in the references. —Zia Khan 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I see the point. Other sources aren't linked in the references, and I don't think it's common practice. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

GA review (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria and WP:GACN)
  1. Well-written.
    a (clear and concise prose which doesn't violate copyright laws, grammar and spelling are correct): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and fiction:
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (well referenced): b (citations to reliable sources): c (Wikipedia:No original research):
  3. Broad in its coverage.
    a (covers major aspects): b (well focused):
  4. Neutral .
    Fair representation, no bias:
  5. Stable.
    No edit wars nor disputed contents:
  6. Illustrated appropriately by images.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Conclusion: Good work with the article. Keep it up! —Zia Khan 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bobby Peel. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bobby Peel. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Peel&oldid=1200556859"