Talk:Abe Waddington

Crisco comments

• in all first-class cricket played in 266 first-class matches. - Isn't having "first-class" twice rather redundant?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• at a league cricket - is "at" correct?

• Nope. Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• occasionally working in the factory. - wouldn't "refinery" be more apt?

• Fair enough. Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• West Bradford League - worth a redlink?

• I'm not sure it would be notable enough. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• After recovering, Waddington transferred to the Royal Flying Corps. - when was he released?

• Unknown. The sources do not say. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• bowling unchanged - ?

• It means bowling throughout both innings of a match without being changed. But on reflection, I don't think it needs to be there and I cut it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Waddington's season concluded with his selection in the prestigious Gentlemen v Players match at the Scarborough Festival. - As a player?

• Yes, specified now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Australian playing conditions. - these being?

• Tried to clarify. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• See "When" tag

• Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• representative matches - link?

• No link, but added a note. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• probably cost Macaulay a place in the England Test team. - Why/how was Macaulay involved?

• Tried to clarify but it's all a bit hearsay. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• was expensive - jargon

• Clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Headlights incident: any mention if he was intoxicated at the time? Reading the footnote (punch, kiss, punch), sounds like that may have been a consideration.

• Nothing in the sources, but I agree it does sound a little like that. Reading between the lines, it does sound like drink may have been involved! But unfortunately that is OR. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, this got me looking again, and there was an "incident" in 1950 which I've added. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• What illness?

• Not in the sources. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Any idea where his ashes were taken? Were they scattered? Was he survived by his second wife?

• Not in the sources. To be honest, it was a struggle even to find sources to say he was married, and although I'm sure his first wife died soon after marriage, I can find no reliable sources. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Duplicate links: appealer, Sutcliffe.

• Got these. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Both images look fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I did a minor revert where Crisco changed the format of bowling figures, for example, "four for 28" to "4 for 28". As I explained here, opinion is divided on this one. I prefer the distinction of "[word] for [number]" when giving bowling figures for two reasons; it separates two different quantities (runs and wickets), and more importantly, this is the format followed by Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, which is the gold standard of cricket writing. See here for one such example. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, no worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

First, I checked out the comments I made in July 2011. These seem to have been dealt with satisfactorily, though I'd still like a bit more information about his batting. Could he be described in the lead as a "lower-order batsman"? Do we have any information as to how he batted, e.g. slogger (unlikely – Yorkshire), forcing, defensive?

I managed to find a bit on this from Herbert Sutcliffe, of all people, and extended that part slightly. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not sure it's worth a comment in the lead on his batting. It was a minor part of his game, and he was by no means an all-rounder; additionally, I don't think for a bowler his batting would merit mention in the lead. But I could be persuaded if you feel it is important. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise I have a few comments on the present text:

• "He was often a hostile bowler who sledged opposing batsmen and questioned umpire's decisions..." Hmmm. I think he was always a hostile bowler who often (or sometimes) sledged his opponents and queried umpires' decisions, so I would reposition the word "often" in this sentence (and consider modifying it to "sometimes")

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Although selected to play in a Yorkshire Second XI match in August 1914, alongside future First XI teammates Herbert Sutcliffe and Cec Tyson..." I have removed one redundant word from the sentence, but you may want to reworded to clarify that he actually played in this match rather than merely "selected". (I was once "selected" to play for my School XI, but on the day was made 12th man – and was never selected again. What an unjust world).

• Done. And my sympathy over the school cricket. I played one match for my school, scoring a heroic 0 not out from number 11 (2 balls faced, a slash and a leave!), not bowling and dropping a catch. Funnily enough, they never asked me again, either... Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Additionally, the pace bowler George Hirst was past his best, meaning that Yorkshire needed to recruit new bowlers, particularly fast bowlers." Too many "bowlers". You could simplify the end of the sentence to read: "needed to recruit new fast bowlers"

• Reworded as suggested, and omitted the pace bowler before Hirst. I think it is clear from the rest of the sentence what he was, and it doesn't matter that much anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Waddington's presence made an enormous difference to the bowling strength of the side" – I'd say this part of the Wisden quote is redundant, since we've just said that Waddington's contribution was crucial.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Test selection and leading bowler": I'd probably mention Johnny Douglas earlier in the section than you do

• Mentioned him at the start. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• "operated on for abscesses" – dental?

• The source does not say; I only included the detail to forestall the "why was he missing?" question. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Do we know why he only bowled five overs in his second Test appearance, given that Douglas "used him to bowl long defensive spells with the prime objective of run-saving"? Incidentaly, I see that Waddington batted at No. 7 in the Fourth Test – rather high? Maybe he was played for his batting?

• I'm assuming injury; he was a little injury-prone at the time. But given Douglas' rather odd tactics, I'm not sure. Douglas only bowled 4 overs himself in the first innings, and (bafflingly) Rhodes did not bowl at all. The other spinners seem to have bowled a bit, so maybe it was turning. I can't explain the second innings, unless he was so appalled that Waddington leaked so many runs in the first innings. He was fit enough to bat. On his batting, I think he was nightwatchman in the first innings (out to the last ball of the first day); Dolphin and Howell were pretty terrible batsmen, and Parkin maybe similar to Waddington, and these are the only ones below him in the second innings, so number eight seems about right in that innings. But this is all OR, and the sources say nothing. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd remove the words "improved much on his form of 1921, and..." from the quote, as you've already said Waddington was more successful than in the previous year

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Among his best performances, he took..." is not a grammatical construction. "Among his best performance were...", or otherwise reword.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• "In total, he took 65 wickets at 18.23." Not clear whether this is for 1923, or for 1924. You've said he returned in 1924, and refer to "that season", but I think you're probably talking about 1923. Probably you should remove the words: "Although Waddington resumed playing in 1924..."

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• More chronology confusion: "the Yorkshire–Middlesex match at Leeds the following season raised a record amount for Roy Kilner's benefit" followed by "Later in 1924..."

• I've moved the 1925 stuff about the benefit to a note, where it is more appropriate as the information is related but tangential. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• "decline in bowling" closely followed by "He declined [the Yorkshire contract]" Maybe choose an alternative for the second mention?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Surely Cardus deserves a "the", not just "a"?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's odd to find Cardus being characteristically rhapsodical about Waddington in one paragraph, and somewhat dismissive in the next. While not absolutely contradictory, the two contrary quotes so close to each other are bound to cause confusion to readers.

• My mistake. It's more of a Cardus lament that Waddington should have been rather better than he actually was, and both quotes come from the same lament. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Can we have the years for when he partnered Cotton (was this a pro-am tournament?) and for when he played in the Open qualifiers?

• No dates or details on Cotton in the sources, but got some for the Open. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• "He was acquitted..." – you need to clarify that "he" was waddington, not the co-defendant or Priestley

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats about it. With appropriate polishing should be fit to go. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and copy-editing. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Two penn'orth from Tim riley

I'm flattered to be asked for comments, and offer these few points on a sale or return basis. No obligation to buy.

• Lead
  • "unusual attributes in his playing days" – "attributes" seems an odd word. I wonder if "conduct" might be better.
    • I began tying myself in knots with that, so reworded slightly to avoid the problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • " effective … particularly against the less successful counties" – well it would hardly have been against the more successful ones, or ipso facto he wouldn't have been being effective. Perhaps "against the weaker counties"?
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "a fat storage firm" – as an exponent of fat storage myself, I rather think you need a hyphen, thus making it a firm that stored fat rather than a storage firm that was overweight.
    • Good point. Once I stopped chuckling, I fixed it, and took account of the comment below. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Early life
  • "owned a fat refining business" – as above. And I note that "storage", above, has now become "refining"
    • I confused myself slightly. I think it was a fat-refining firm which was responsible for storage during the war. Fixed now, on both counts. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "critically wounded" – as the poor man died in the crater, I think "mortally" or "fatally" would be more precise here.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• County debut
  • "the team struggled to dismiss teams" – could the "teams" be "sides" to avoid the repetition?
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "had also wounded" – missing a "been", I think.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "and Robinson to help them" – this is the first mention of Emmott, and he merits a first name and a blue link at this point
    • And a fanfare, and a brass band! Good old Emmott. Technically I don't think we should link within quotes, but I've done it anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Test selection and leading bowler
  • "The introduction of pace bowler George Macaulay" – this is one of the bees in my bonnet and you are probably fed up with reading it, but I don't think this form of wording suitable for an encyclopedia article in British English. It is, I know, fine in American English, but over here it is tabloidese. The insertion of a definite article before "pace" will remedy the matter.
    • Yes, I must have missed that one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Injury and controversy
  • "Yorkshire's defeat against Middlesex" – would "by" perhaps read more naturally than "against" here?
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Journalist Alfred Pullin" – as for "pace bowler George", above.
    • Oops! Sorry! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Style and personality
  • "he bowled an off cutter" – the OED hyphenates this term.
    • I'm inclined to agree, so I've changed it. Our article doesn't hyphenate, so no doubt someone will change it back! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Neville Cardus, a journalist" and "Anthony Woodhouse, a cricket historian" – for both, the indefinite article looks strange, and would be better as a definite article, I think.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Yorkshire player and England captain Len Hutton" – another "pace bowler George" wording.
    • Oh dear, what was I doing? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "the captain, whom Waddington believed had used" – "who", not "whom" wanted here. (Put imaginary brackets round [Waddington believed] to see the grammatical structure of the sentence.)
    • Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Later life
  • "At the start of World War II" – you refer to the 1914–18 war as the First World War, and for consistency should call the 1939–45 one the Second World War.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Eep, my bad (I think). Sorry! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "he married Mabel Fawell" – I'm sure you'd have mentioned it if the sources said, but it is quite noticeable that we don't learn whether he was divorced or widowed.
    • He was definitely widowed, but the only way that can be proved is by some very ropey research on an ancestry site; otherwise I can't find a source which says anything, and so I have to leave it vague as it is here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As to whether the article is suitable for FAC, I should say it certainly is. It's comprehensive, balanced, widely sourced and cited, and a pleasure to read. – Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and comments. As always, they are much appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Nice and balanced overall, with just a couple of comments:

Lead

• "behaviour which was unusual attributes during his playing days." This doesn't seem to read correctly to me

• Oops. I don't read what I write. Fixed now. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Beginning a sentence with"however" seems to be verboten at FAC nowadays

• I think I'll risk that one and see what happens. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Early life

• "He played for Yorkshire Second XI" ->the Yorkshire Second XI?

• I don't think so. It is the same as "he played for Yorkshire" or "he played for Manchester United", I think . Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Would you say "he played for Manchester United second XI"? Your call, but I think the article is probably needed. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I would actually! But if anyone else has a problem, I'll change it as it's possible I've been saying it wrong for all these years!! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly complete enough (and good enough) for a run through FAC. If you choose to go down that route, please drop me a line. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Cliftonian comments

Lead

• "who played in two Test matches for England against Australia in 1920–21" I would suggest reword to "for England, both against Australia, in 1920–21" to make clear these were the only two Test matches he played in (it could be gathered that he played in more and that these two are exceptional as they were against Australia)

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• "his first season; he took 100 wickets and was largely responsible for Yorkshire's victory in the County Championship that season" repetition, I would suggest changing the second iteration to "that year"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• "1920–21 Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) tour of Australia. On that tour Waddington appeared in two of the five Tests." maybe contract to "tour of Australia, during which Waddington appeared in two of the five Tests"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• "In his younger days Waddington played several football matches for Halifax Town as a goalkeeper, and after his retirement from cricket enjoyed some success as an amateur golfer. In his later days," Slightly repetitive prose, I would change one of these to "in younger life" or "in later life" to add some variety

• Reworded a bit of this. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Early life

• "the eldest of three brothers" does the source say if there were sisters, or were all three children boys?

• The source does not say. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• why not wikilink First day on the Somme (during the first day of the Battle of the Somme)

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• "One of these was the Yorkshire cricketer Major Booth, who was mortally wounded" perhaps reword to make clear Major was his name and not his rank; perhaps "One of these was Second Lieutenant Major Booth, the Yorkshire cricketer, who was mortally wounded"

• I'm not sure this is important enough to specify. Adding his rank may confuse people even further, as we start to get into the realms of Major Major Major Major! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

County debut

• "he "had a first season of exceptional promise"" tense; shouldn't this be "he had "had a first season of exceptional promise"" ?

• Yes, but I hate "had had" if it can be avoided, so I reworded a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• "In the official history of Yorkshire" I presume we mean the official history of Yorkshire CCC, not Yorkshire itself

• Yup. Specified. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps worth mentioning the 1920 Gentlemen–Players match was drawn?

• I don't think so. A lot of them were. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Test selection and leading bowler

• Perhaps wikilink Wilfred Rhodes in the image caption

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• "J. W. H. T. Douglas" seems a bit much; why not just Johnny Douglas? (or perhaps J. W. H. T. "Johnny" Douglas)

• As Brian, above, will probably agree, the opportunity to display his magnificent initials is too much to resist! Cricketers love initials more than they love names. And to be honest, he was often known as much as JWHT, and the Australian crowds used to call him "Johnny Won't Hit Today" as he was a spectacularly dull batsman to watch. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Injury and controversy

• "Waddington claimed to be innocent" how about "Waddington maintained that he was innocent"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Later life

• "the captain, who Waddington believed" should be "whom Waddington believed"
  • Pantomime chorus of pedants. grammarians and Fowlerites: "Oh, no it shouldn't!" – "whom Waddington believed to have used" but "who Waddington believed had used". Tim riley (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    • D'oh! —Cliftonian (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
      • In fairness I must add that not every grammarian agrees with Fowler on this. A minority of respectable authorities are of the "whom Waddington believed" school of thought. (But they're wrong!) I'll shut up now. Tim riley (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

As you can see I found very few things to quibble about; a really fine effort that I am sure will do well at FAC. Good luck! —Cliftonian (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and suggestions! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments

• Lead: "He was a hostile bowler who sometimes sledged opposing batsmen and questioned umpire's decisions". Not sure about this, but is "umpire's" supposed to have the apostrophe at the end?
• Injury and controversy: "apart one match against Lancashire in which he bowled just six overs." Does "from" belong after "apart"? These two items are all I see that are worth commenting on. Nice job, as usual. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for these. Both done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)