Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:54, 28 June 2008 [1].

Donald Bradman

[edit]
previous FAC
Nominator: Dweller

This is an article that's been the subject of a tremendous amount of work in the last few months. There have been many contributors who've moved the article on from the excellent base provided, notably by User:Phanto282.

The article has undergone a (more than) extensive Peer Review, has been copy-edited by a number of terrific volunteers and some of the more contentious aspects of the article have been thoroughly debated by the cricket experts at WP:CRIC and by FAC regulars at the article talk page.

I strongly believe that this article would not be out of place among those that espouse our best qualities.

Being defensive for one minute - it is slightly longer than I think ideal, but the man was a phenomenon and utterly notable. For about 70 years he was the subject of the fascination of millions, if not billions of people, as a player, administrator, writer and thinker. The article's about as short as we could make it without rendering it not comprehensive. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citeweb issues raised by Nishkid64
Resolved comments from Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some inconsistencies in the references. For example, refs 193 and 194 use the YEAR-MONTH-DAY for date written, while refs 222 and 223 use DAY MONTH YEAR. Furthermore, in some cases you properly use the "work=" parameter of {{cite news}}, while in others (ref 139, 135, 130, just to name a few) you use "publisher=" instead, even though "work=" is acceptable. Also, some refs (Wisden, xxxx edition refs) don't have any publisher info (should be Cricinfo). For those refs, it would also be nice to indicate that registration is required to access that content. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for those comments. I'll look into the date inconsistencies, thanks. Re "work" v "publisher", if both are acceptable, does it matter which is used? How do I show registration is needed? --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Work and publisher are two separate things. "Work=" italicizes, while "Publisher=" doesn't. Furthermore, work and publisher aren't the same most of the time. For example, a work would be the New York Times, while the publisher is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. I do believe it's the same for BBC News and some other news sites. As for registration, just add "Registration required to access content." at the end of the ref. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As The Rambling Man will happily tell you, I'm lousy with the citeweb templates. Evidence is now available at the article, because my last edit to the D/M/Y issue gave a load of redlinks, lol. Thanks for clarifying. I'll crack on with this and let you know when I think it's done. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned right now, I've rushed through all 200 ref's and made them, at least, consistent with one another. Happy to take advice and modify further, but would encourage reviewers to focus on content of the article rather than the peripheries (which, while important, aren't as important as the article by an order of magnitude...imho) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reference consistency is a requirement for all featured articles. Criterion 2c of the FA criteria specifically states that references must be formatted consistently. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not arguing with that but I think Dweller would be keen to receive some feedback on the huge amount of prose in the article rather than the citations which can be tidied up at the end. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I suck at prose. :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dates and citation formatting look consistent now (and yes, it's an important issue for FAs :-). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to an earlier comment you made, the registration issue has been dealt with here. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB isn't a reliable source, right? It's used as ref 195. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found a replacement source from an Australian source called The Daily Telegraph. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Various comments from User:Gary King
Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, inconsistencies in references, so I won't delve into this any further until it has been addressed. Please format like WP:CITE/ES.
The Rambling Man has kindly agreed to take that on. --Dweller (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "innings. See [1]." – Definitely should have text for that URL.
Not sure what you mean... hopefully it'll be clear if I search the text. --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Gotcha. I'll see how I can improve it. --Dweller (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TRM got there. Thanks - that was a good spot. --Dweller (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images should be placed before level three section headings, per MOS:IMAGE.
I'll look into that. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found and dealt with one breach. There's another (a graph) but there's no text following it, so no rationale for doing anything with it. --Dweller (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some mixes of American and British spelling; I am assuming the article wants to use the latter. One example if American spelling is "honor".
I can only see "honorary", which is correct usage in British English. One of our many quirks;-) Could be the one you saw has been fixed? Anyway, if you spot any others, let me know please. --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy issues from User:Giants2008
Issues resolved Giants2008 (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Probably the most important sports article I've reviewed to date. With an athlete of this stature, everything must be as close to perfect as possible. Here are my comments.

Good stuff. Thanks - I want this article polished to perfection. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the "greatest statistical performance in sports history" statement cited by a later part of this article? We are not a reliable source, remember. Either use references from later in the article or don't put a reference there. I'm not a big fan of copying citations in the lead, but would understand that a claim like this may need one there.
I see where you're coming from, but it's not a reference, it's a note. I did it because I thought casual readers would be astonished by the claim and want to read more, rather than to evidence it. In common with most FAs I've worked on, I've not evidenced most of the claims in the Lead; exceptions being where something is not referenced elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're doing now. It does need something, since it is an extraordinary claim. Giants2008 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some of which stand even today" is quite time-sensitive. Try "some of which still stand".
Happy to make the change, though I'm not sure what the problem was, nor how it's addressed by the change. Nonethless... done. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just had an issue with today. Just trying to make sure this doesn't become outdated. Giants2008 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A controversial set of tactics, known as Bodyline, was specifically devised" Since tactics is plural, should this be "were"? I looked at the Bodyline article and couldn't find a similar use.
  • My understanding reading this was that "set of tactics" is a singular item. There was one "set of tactics" and it was called Bodyline. Perhaps the sentence needs recasting to avoid confusion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mattinbgn. That's correct. Bodyline was a single entity, comprising of various tactics being put together (chiefly selection of players and application of leg theory, fast bowling and innovative field placements) I see no need to reword (there's no confusing ambiguity), but if others disagree, I'll reconsider. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I misread this one. "Set" is the key word, not "tactics". Set should be singular, so this is correct. Sorry about that! Giants2008 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to curb his batting brillance" Be careful with phrases like this. Reviewers will think this is POV even if it's true.
Ooh, good spot. I'll obliterate it. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Youth and early career: One sentence paragraph here. An occasional short paragraph isn't bad, but too many is a negative. It doesn't really go well with the previous paragrapah, though.
Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bush cricketer: Two Ashes and Test cricket links in section.
Good spot. Gone. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First-class debut: Another Ashes link.
Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test career: It's weird that not out is linked right after a prior use. I'd move the link to first mention.
Strange - I only just added the not out link and I thought I'd been careful to use it first-up. I'll check this. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Did you mean "run out"? The not "out"s seem to be fine, but I found a problem as you describe with "run out" and fixed it, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Run out was what I meant. My ignorance of cricket terms comes through again. :-) Giants2008 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later I'll try to clean up a few things myself, but this should be enough for now. When these are addressed, I will return for more. Giants2008 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for the second round from me. I changed some things yesterday to lighten the load here, leaving some things I was unsure about.
  • 1930 tour of England: "Bradman spent a lot of his free time alone, writing," Is the first comma needed? I didn't know whether it should be removed, so I waited until I could ask about it.
Puzzled - looks fine to me. He was alone, writing. Maybe I'm puzzled cos I can only see one comma, so which is the "first" one you're referring to? --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the full sentence: "Bradman spent a lot of his free time alone, writing, as he had sold the rights to a book." The serial comma thing always confuses me. Giants2008 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This paragraph is unusual. It hops from Bradman being aloof to a Test match. I'm uncertain whether the chronological order is maintained here.
Agreed. Moved it to end of section where tour as a whole is being judged and it contrasts nicely with his reception back in Australia. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no-one" Don't think a hyphen is needed.
Hmm. Could be a cultural thing. I'd always spell it that way. "No one" means something else altogether and "noone" offends my Englishman's eye. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably is a cultural thing. Giants2008 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant hero: "he scored quickly in making a succession of high scores against the South Africans in the southern hemisphere summer of 1931–32." Scored and score are redundant.
I see what you mean, though they've been used differently, it looks ghastly. Amended. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bodyline: "Jack Fingleton was in no doubt that Bradman's game altered irrevocably as a consequence of Bodyline". Seems to me that this should either be "changed" or "was altered". If the latter, also change "was in" to "had".
Why? What's wrong with altered? It's a slightly interesting usage ("the game" is active, rather than passive) but replacing it with "changed" is the same usage. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not used to seeing altered used in that way. If you think it's okay I'll accept it.
*Declining health and a brush with death: "Bradman blazed two centuries". What does blazed mean in this context? I'm worried that it's either POV or jargon. Never mind; I missed the explanation below. Giants2008 (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at this time, this" is a redundancy. Change first this to the?
Good spot. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internal politics and the Test captaincy: "needed to replace the retired Bill Woodfull as captain." How about "needed to replace retired captain Bill Woodfull."
No, because that would imply he'd just retired from the captaincy. He'd retired full stop. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it seemed that the captaincy was affecting his form." Would perhaps be better as "the captaincy issue" or such.
Seems fine to me. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just looks odd to me seeing as Bradman wasn't the captain. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I guess. Giants2008 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV alert: "In an epic performance".
Ooh yes! I'll deal. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he battled a influenza" Is "a influenza" commonly used in British English?
Yuck! Where did that come from? It's toast. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to do one more round of comments later, but this is all for now. Giants2008 (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time for the final round from me. Dweller's apparently off for the weekend, but I'm sure someone else will see these and respond.
  • End of an era: "he described the captaincy as "exhausting" and that he "found it difficult to keep going"" Would this be better with said before that he?
  • "With Bradman injured and Fingleton too unable to bat due to a leg muscle strain".
  • "The ghost of a once great cricketer": Second straight section with a fibrositis link.
  • Century of centuries and "The Invincibles": "The story perpetuated over many years that Bradman missed the ball because of tears in his eyes was a claim he denied for the rest of his life." How about "A story perpetuated over many years that Bradman missed the ball because of tears in his eyes, which Bradman denied for the rest of his life." I'm sure you can improve my version.
  • Given that this is a piped link I would assume so. Both approaches are in line with WP:CRIC#STYLE: "Where a person is best known by their initials and surname (as in W. G. Grace), use either W. G. Grace or WG Grace for the title of the article, depending on the article creator's personal preference. [...] If using a form such as W G Grace in the body of an article, ensure that it is redirected to one of the acceptable title forms – e.g., WG Grace." -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After cricket, Administrative career: "Cricket suffered an increase in defensive play during the 1950s." Is this POV? It may be safer to state that "Cricket saw an increase..."
  • Later years and legacy: ABC is linked in its second use in the section.
  • "Bradman's life and achievements were recognised by the Australian nation with two notable issues." Recognised by Australia?
  • Family life: "it was more a matter of "the pair inhabit different worlds."" Can the first part of this be changed to better flow with the quote?
  • I have gone the other way and made a (very small) change to the quote. It does not change the meaning and without access to the source, I was loathe to change the lead in to the quote. Trust this is OK. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statistical summary, Cricket context: Brian Lara is linked twice in the section. I would have removed this myself, but didn't know if this was intentional. considering that all names in the section are linked.
  • World sport context: I would link the statistics in the table. Most cricket fans will have no idea what a batting average in baseball is, and the other stats may be unknown to certain people as well.
  • "while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43 points per game." Should the number be 43.0?
That's all from me. Please respond to these ASAP so I can fully support this. Giants2008 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed these points on behalf of the nominator, if that is satisfactory. -- 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
100% Support - One of the finest sports articles on Wikipedia in my humble view. One final comment from me: August 27 is Bradman's 100th birthday. Sounds like a perfect Main Page date to me. Giants2008 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no consensus by User:Bole2

Resolved issues from Buc (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buc. Thanks for this... and for your copy-edit. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sisters—Islet," why the hyphen, there is another in the next pragragh.
It's an em dash. See WP:DASH. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His unbeaten 103 (from 146 balls)" the reader might not know what you mean by "unbeaten"
Good point. I'll wikilink --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(at 56.57)" no idea what that means.
Again, good one. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Test selectors made five changes to the team who had played in the previous Test match. Significantly, Australia’s most successful bowler Clarrie Grimmett was replaced by Ward, one of four players making their debut. The controversy over Grimmett’s omission from the team was to become a theme that dogged Bradman for the next two years—he was regarded as having finished the veteran’s Test career." the first two sentences have nothing to do with Bradman and I don't really understand the third, a theme that dogged Bradman!? and who is "the veteran"?
Bradman was a selector. Grimmett is the subject of the sentence, so is the subject of "the veteran" --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, this wasn't fantastically clear, esp as the info about Bradman being a selector now is a few parags up. I've clarified both issues. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the Notes section be titled References?
I think it should be both. I'll make the change. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll amend. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with 856 (or 38.5%)" not sure I follow this. 856 isn't the same as 38.5%.
In making some other fixes, I've also clarified this better. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, others thought it proved the theory that he did not handle the short ball very well." needs a ref.
Sounds like it does, indeed. Strange. I'll look into it. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good spot. Amended. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, others thought it proved the theory that he did not handle the short ball very well." needs a ref.
Sounds like it does, indeed. Strange. I'll look into it. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good spot. Amended. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot. Clarified. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sporting idol at the height of the Great Depression." wasn't the Great Depression in America?
Good spot. It's jargon, not a quote. I'll find a wikilink. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suprised Jerry Rice isn't in the World sport context table. Cy Young is another you could put in.

That'd be OR. I can only include what RS have done. Which is this bunch. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are yes I see now. Well you could at least add Joe Montana.
Still OR - it's not in that RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ref says "By Mr. Davis's calculations, Bradman led the order of career-long achievement with a 4.4 rating, followed by soccer's Pelé (3.7), baseball's Ty Cobb (3.6), golf's Jack Nicklaus (3.5), basketball's Michael Jordan (3.4) and football's Joe Montana (3.1)."
I'll have to check that. If you're right, I don't know why he's been omitted and I'll add him. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, interesting. Actually, I'm surprised you're not arguing for just one other name to be included, as above (in which case on this occasion, I'd strongly argue against!) Montana provides me with a problem, in that I have no access to Davis' book (and neither does any of my current collaborators) and the only RS that mentions Montana does not mention the basis of his inclusion (touchdowns? points? successful passes? Superbowl rings? something else?) In any event, including the top five names seems sufficient for our needs, indeed, this is the basis on which Buckley's article in the Observer (currently ref 221) works. I'd guess that for the NYT article, Montana was added for the extra context his name would provide for a US audience, especially as the names in positions 1 and 2 are not from what I might term 'mainstream' American sports. With our international audience, we don't have such concerns. So, all in all, even if I had access to the book and could properly insert Montana in the table... I probably wouldn't. --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some refs have the date before the link (e.g #35) and some after (e.g #47).
    • You'll need to take that up with the authors of the {{cite web}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it not possible to just enter all the web refs the same way?
        • The template {{cite web}} formats the references according to its own set of rules. If you read the examples given at the template page itself you can see that if you have an author (e.g. for 35) the author's name comes first, then the date, then the title, then the publisher, then the accessdate. If you don't have an author's name then the title comes first, then the publisher, then the date, then the accessdate. Modifying that template is outside the scope of this FAC and would have a huge impact Wikipedia-wide so I propose the citations are left as the current format. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cricinfo links require registration, you need to say this.
  • Might be worth mentioning him being out for a duck in his last test match in the lead.
Hmmm... I'm tempted. It's hard to justify, given that the Lead is already so packed. We haven't specified his highest score (334) either, which was a world record. Let's see what others think. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe it's necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "37 not out" the reader might not know what not out means, I know it's linked but a brief definition would help.
We can't explain all jargon in the article. Convention is to ensure that the first instance is wikilinked, so that an article is neither impenetrable nor dumbed down. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one does need to be explained though as it's used a lot.
I disagree - it is not the place of a biographical article to explain the laws of cricket. The link is sufficient to explain. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need much and it can be in brackets so it doesn't effect the flow of the writing.
Sorry, but sentences with "explanatory notes" in parentheses will affect the flow. I don't believe it needs to be explained here, you are on your own with this opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not saying that they prospered. The article is making the argument that with the Australians expected to struggle, to reverse that expectation, they needed the kids to do well. That's not POV. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs explaining.
I think it's fine as it is actually. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "four centuries, including two double hundreds" use either century or hundred, not both.
We get criticised for repetition of words in sentences/paragraphs. As they're synonyms, I see no gain from making this change. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but don't use both in the same sentence.
No, that doesn't make logical sense - no reason why not to brighten the prose up - it's clear these two are synonymous and avoiding repetition is a good thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't consistency important?
This isn't an argument of consistency - both words are interchangeable and can, and should, be used that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on wording at end of section... international cricket closed down in 1939 because most of the cricket-playing countries went to war. By the time Bradman returned to the world stage, he would be greatly reduced by poor health. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really the main sebject of the section?
Do you have any other suggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no other, obvious, pithy title and it seems a good one to end the pre-War period with. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about the In popular culture section. Seems like trivia.
You should have seen the way it used to look! Seriously, I think that all of the inclusions there are very significant (I ditched a lot of junk) and hang together reasonably well. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe ask a few other users what they think.
I've posted to WT:CRIC --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at WT:CRIC is that this is justified. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australian cricketer, widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time. Bradman's career Test batting average of 99.94 has been claimed to be statistically the greatest performance in any major sport." Is there some way of mereing these to statments since they they are saying much the same sot of thing. Also is "performance" the best word to use? Isn't a performance what you do in one game?
They're very much not the same thing! One is saying he was the greatest batsman ever (not bowler or fielder) in cricket. The second claim is that a stastistic he racked up is the greatest stat in any major sport. Again, not that he was the greatest sportsman. The two are very specific and very different. Re "performance" I see where you're coming from. I think rewording to "achievement" will do nicely. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They both justify that he is seen as a great player. Buc (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The claims are very different. The opening sentences of the Lead have been discussed at great length at various pages and consensus seems to be to leave these claims as being notable and different claims. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what you mean - you mean Donald_Bradman#Test_records, don't you? Pondering this. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still discussing / pondering this, but I wondered which of the WP:WIAFA criteria this would come under - or is this just a helpful suggestion, rather than a 'please change'? --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're comfortable leaving it as a list. --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive for such a long article though looks to be relatively close. Buc (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for such a detailed look-through. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Next best is Brian Lara with 9 in 232 innings (4%), Walter Hammond with 7 in 140 innings (5%) and Kumar Sangakkara 6 in 110 innings (5%)." again don't need to list them all.
How many would you include? --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One
Pondering this. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're still discussing this; we're currently split. I'll give it a bit longer. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Status quo. --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only seven players have surpassed his total, all at a much lower rate Sachin Tendulkar (who required 159 innings to do so), Matthew Hayden (167 innings), Ricky Ponting (170 innings), Sunil Gavaskar (174 innings), Jacques Kallis (200 innings), Brian Lara (205 innings) and Steve Waugh (247 innings)" you don't really needed to list them all. Maybe just say who was the quickest.
Pondering this. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're still discussing this; we're currently split. I'll give it a bit longer. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion is exactly divided. There are good arguments for keeping them, so I'll stick with the status quo. --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't agree with the following suggestion

He had a complex personality and was highly driven. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say that.
It does say that - the prose is supposed to be elegant and, perhaps, brilliant. It is perfectly acceptable to say someone is complex. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about "highly driven"?
Don't know what more you can say. If a person is "highly driven" then they are "highly driven" - there's nothing more you can say. It's self-explanatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "highly driven" is self-explanatory. He's not a car.
Well it makes perfect sense to me - it's a common usage. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article should not be writen just for you.
Buc, I don't believe we should make the prose childlike - it needs to be engaging. To be "highly driven" is in common parlance. Nearly 100k Ghits for the phrase. You're the only one who has a problem with it so I suggest the community consensus is that it stays as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we should ask others what they think. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine. Never mind brilliant prose, this isn't the Simple English wikipedia - we expect readers to be able to read and comprehend professionally written articles. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significantly, he had not hit a six" why Significantly
Text goes on to explain. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that at all.
It says "if he hit the ball along the ground, then it could not be caught." - just before this we're talking about how many boundaries he struck, therefore it's significant that he didn't hit sixes because he wouldn' run the risk of being caught. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've helped the comprehension of this with a wikilink to six (cricket). Readers may have been unaware that a six is necessarily hit in the air (and therefore 'catchable') --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems a bit odd to say it's significant before explaining why and how
Cmon, Buc... it's the same sentence. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just switch it round. Buc (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it makes perfect sense as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we need to ask what others think. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I expect anyone not understanding the first half of a clause to read its second half before throwing up their hands in dismay. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Reluctant hero section so called?
Section explains - he hated the adulation. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that?
It says "Bradman received a level of adulation that "embarrassed" him." hence a reluctant hero. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says that in the section before.
So it's explained. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In another section. Why not call the last section Reluctant hero?
No, it's fine as it is. Once more, this seems to be a problem only for you Buc, the community consensus therefore suggests it should stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Need to ask others. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article's been reviewed endlessly. It's fine. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The public clamoured for the return" why clamoured?
I wasn't around then, but I'd imagine because he was the most successful batsman ever, by a country mile. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say that.
That would be WP:OR Buc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not OR right now?
Making statements of opinion which aren't cited is WP:OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is "clamoured" from a ref then?
No, it's not in quotemarks. It's an excellent and not at all OTT way of summarising the kind of fever that the RS describes as "'Bradmania', amounting almost to religious fervour, demanded his return". --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've nerver heard it before.
Buc, again, clamour is in common parlance - here's a definition for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put a link in the article. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've already been criticised for linking terms in common parlance. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An innings and 579 run victory is a thrashing. Note, according to Princeton university, thrash means " beat thoroughly and conclusively in a competition or fight" The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a paradox, as explained by the pithy and rather brilliant quote, because the more reclusive he became, the more people wanted to know what he thought about everything from modern cricketers to brands of breakfast cereal. More, his contemporaries (especially the teammates who disliked him) couldn't believe how his adulation continued to grow, despite or perhaps because of this reclusiveness. Frith's a brilliant writer. If only he could be persuaded to contribute an FA! --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth explaining.
I think it's fairly clear already. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I couldn't follow it at all. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I think the section explains it pretty well. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was released and gave researchers new insights" who are these's researchers? and what were these new insights?
Well, for starters, a load of the guys referred to in the Bibliography, but really this is beyond the scope of this article. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean name them all just what there intentions at reserching Bradman is, are they media?
Who they are is irrelevant. They'll be people interested in researching cricket or Bradman or both. It's a general term, used generally, to describe a group, that the article need not define more closely, because it's such a minute detail. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there some sort other mystery about his life they want to slove?
Buc, this is too much - there doesn't need to be some huge detail over such a small point of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said "huge detail" who are these "researchers"?
It's irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok with the remaining issues we will have to agree to degree. If you can show me that the consensus is not to do what I am suggesting I'll will accept it. Buc (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buc, it's virtually impossible to prove a negative, which is what you're asking for. If the consensus agrees with you or disagrees with the status quo then they will state it here at the FAC. As far as we can we can, we've accommodated your requests but, ultimately, that's what they are, your personal requests. If you can identify where this article now fails to meet WP:WIAFA then let us know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno how that happened. Replaced. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damned bots? Is there a bot that does that? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there was a bot that ran around fixing plain references to cite web's whose title was auto-generated from the webpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)r[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, the links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done, I think, Ealdgyth. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bradman was unprepared for the intensity of his reception... -why not just 'surprised by' (or was that the original verb?)
Dunno. Happy to amend. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In 15 Test matches since the beginning of 1930,.. 'since' makes me think of the present, why not simply 'from'?
This has resulted from recent edits from other users. I'll amend - it's lost the reason for the stat being presented, as well as becoming stilted. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bradman had several other problems to deal with at this time. - could drop the 'several' I think, nothing is lost by its removal.
Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Harte's analysis of the situation.. - hang on, who is Chris Harte? A word on who he is should be placed in front of him (biographer?)
Chris Harte, now retired, was a cricket journalist and commentator in Australia. He wrote at least four cricket books besides History of Australian Cricket and he is widely known among the cricket writing fraternity; he is also widely quoted. I'm surprised there is not an article about him on WP yet but, then, I still say that our cricket coverage even now has more redlinks than blue. BlackJack | talk page 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, just slotting in a 'Cricket author' before the first mention of his name will do very nicely. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I did it myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bradman suffered "a discernable and not unexpected wilting of spirit". - not fond of overuse of quotes especially when they aren't particularly notable. can we just say he grieved or got depressed?
I think this one's important. I don't really want to be accused of making up that he was depressed or grieving or whatever, so reproducing faithfully the exact words of the RS makes accusations of POV or OR or bad faith unanswerable. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh heck, none of these are real deal-breakers, so...Support conditional on fixing or telling me why I shouldn't bother with the above quibbles. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, and the other key editors I've asked haven't either. Otherwise, I agree with you. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a superb article and I think the expectancy of some of the comments above is that it must be inch perfect because of Bradman's stature in world sport. I think we need to remember that a featured article does not have to be A-class (i.e., complete). I have read one biography of Bradman (i.e., Brightly Fades the Don) and am completely familiar with many details of his career. The article does not omit anything worthy of note, in my opinion, and I cannot see anything at all that I find remotely suspect. In terms of readability and provision of information, I give it 10/10. Excellent work by all concerned. BlackJack | talk page 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of article grades, FA class is a step above A class. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. If it is a sic typo, it comes across a little pernickety to reproduce it, anyway. I'm sure Frith himself would approve if I fix it. :-) --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—It's a fine article indeed; congratulations to the main authors—you should be proud. I must declare that I made a small contribution to the development of the text a few weeks ago.
    • Suggestion: the boxed quote from the New Chronicle—isn't it stronger in reduced form? "As long as Australia has Bradman she will be invincible ... It is almost time to request a legal limit on the number of runs Bradman should be allowed to make." I don't quite see the relevance of the billiards sentence that I removed here: ("As long as Australia has Bradman she will be invincible ... In order to keep alive the competitive spirit, the authorities might take a hint from billiards. It is almost time to request a legal limit on the number of runs Bradman should be allowed to make."). Btw, I presume that the opening sentence is incomplete—chopped off before it finishes in the original; otherwise, four dots without initial space are necessary....
Agreed. The chop will remove a distraction. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. And the ellipsis is now unarguable! --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't like these sentences: "In his farewell season for NSW, Bradman averaged 132.44, his best yet.[25] He was appointed vice-captain for the 1934 tour of England. However, his health continued to be variable." Bit choppy, and "variable" sounds funny in this context. Go to the reference to help find a better epithet? TONY (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll take a look at that. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended, using a quote about his health and flowing the second and third sentences better. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony1, and thanks again for the considerable feedback you gave at around the time of the Peer Review. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I've avoided citing in the Lead, and this was intended to be a signpost for where to read more (cited) info, but I can see the problem. I'll try to address this later. --Dweller (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There. That should do the trick. --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NB Thanks to both you and Blnguyen for pointing the way on how to deal with that. --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I haven't been part of the team involved in putting this article together, I have followed it through discussions on the acticle talk page, at WT:CRIC and at Peer Review and have chimed in from time to time with my opinion. Having said all that, I feel this article quite clearly meets the featured article criteria. It has undergone a very rigorous process to get to this stage and rightly so given the level of interest in the subject. It is well-written, thoroughly sourced, and covers all relevent matters in a even-handed manner. The only thing I would do differently is to shift the focus slightly from the statistics and place it a little more on Bradman the man. All the figures, tables and graphs included border on stats-porn and sometimes "less is more". Some themes relating to his personality are merely touched on and an expansion would be useful. Having said that, these points have been raised at earlier discussions; the consensus is the article balance is fine and I am comfortable with that. The various split articles also cover Bradman as a person in more detail. Overall, this article is certainly some of Wikipedia's best work. Well done to the authors. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Error in the "Bush Cricketer" section: Bradman scored 300 in the Berrima District final of 1925-26. He played with St George the following season, but returned to the Bowral team for the final and scored 320*, which resulted in a rule change barring Sydney Grade players from appearing in the local competition Phanto282 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My one quibble is with the Davis analysis as stated in the peer review, though that is but one small part of an excellent biography which is compelling and highly informative. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As long as the recommendations above (all minor problems) are acknowledged i see no problems with the article. It's a large article but it was enjoyable to read, clearly written and does justice to Bradman and Cricket in general. I have to say i was very impressed with the majority of the prose. I only wish i could write so well! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Donald_Bradman&oldid=1126593978"