Wikipedia:Peer review/Ian Johnson (cricketer)/archive1

Ian Johnson (cricketer)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am keen to see it improve to Featured Article standard. The article is part of the Invincibles featured topic drive. In particular, suggestions to improve the prose are sought. Thanks, Mattinbgn\^talk 03:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the past tense of lead - "led", or is it different in different parts of the world ? Tintin 06:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just my poor spelling. From Lead (disambiguation): "Note: the past tense of the verb to lead, that is, led, is frequently misspelled as lead. This is due to confusion with the correct spelling of the past tense of to read, which is indeed read and rhymes with 'bed'". I have fixed all occurances. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

Some ideas:

Is there a WPMOS point about sub-texting the CBE? If so thats fine, I just haven't heard of it myself.

It doesn't say they should be made smaller but then again it doesn't say they can't. ; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Post-nominal initials. I quite like the look of them. They don't seem so obtrusive. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if bowling average is linked in the lead, the double mention of the word "wicket" could possibly be avoided as it makes the sentence slightly blocky.

Reworded. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the Victorian team" is that the correct usage? Sounds like you are talking about Queen Victorias reign.

The word "Victorian" was redundant there and is now removed. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should OBE not be linked in the lead?

Probably, but MBE, OBE and CBE all would be linked to Order of the British Empire. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That "references for cricinfo or wisden" thing, haven't seen that before. Is that common practice for cricket articles now? I wonder if there is a more stylish way to do it, maybe with a template or something.

I pinched it from the Bradman article. It is less obtrusive that attaching (registration required) after every Cricinfo reference. A template may be a good idea but I think it would need to be relatively understated. -- 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All in all, I have to say I don't have too much to talk about, it's a very good article. Good work. SGGH ^speak! 09:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

Are you awarded an MBE, or made an MBE?

I guess it is hard to be awarded a "Member of the Order of the British Empire". Reworded. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Johnson attended Wesley College and while still a schoolboy he was included in the South Melbourne First XI, aged 16." I think a couple more commas are need in here, maybe after "College", "and", and "schoolboy", or perhaps just after "schoolboy".

Placed after "and" and "schoolboy" -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In the only Test match, played at the Basin Reserve in Wellington, Johnson scored 7 not out but he was not needed to bowl as New Zealand collapsed for a combined 96 runs in their two innings. In the first Test between the two nations, Australia won by an innings and 103 runs." Was this the first ever test between Aus and NZ? If so, I think that needs to be clarified and probably mentioned earlier - perhaps "In the only and first ever Test ..."

Reworded, and much improved, I think -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"earning himself a pair". Can you earn yourself a pair? You possibly can, but it doesn't quite sound right.

reworded -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Australia won the series four Tests to nil." How about simply, "Australia won the series 4–0."? Similarly "two-nil" above could be 2–0. Another later on in "Decline in form". Another in "Ashes defeat". In fact there's a few.

This was done to address the problem you identify below, too many single digit figures. Perhaps I have gone a little too far the other way. Will take a look at this one. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed a few, left some as well—for variety. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did his sons Bill and Bob play any level of cricket?

I can't find any record of this -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few MOS points
- Check for nbsp's. I've added a few when I've seen them missing.

- Had another look through and picked up a few as well. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Is it correct format to say 4/58, for 4 for 58?

- It appears so, see WP:CRIC#STYLE: "Bowling format: Use "5/100", which indicates that a bowler has captured 5 wickets while giving away 100 runs." -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There's quite a lot of single digit figures. It might be correct use of the MOS, but I think it looks a bit ugly.

- I agree wholeheartedly. At FAC sometimes they allow me to keep some as words, other times they insist on the change to numbers. I will take a look and see which instances are worth defending using words for. Mattinbgn\^talk 02:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good stuff, otherwise. Any questions, just let me know. Peanut4 (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again for the thorough review and for your qiuck copy-edit. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 02:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]