Talk:Arthur Mold

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arthur Mold/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 16:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yay, a cricket bio that's not 60kb. All joking around aside, here are my comments:

• "in 1882, the Middleton Cheney were unbeaten" perhaps "..in 1882, the Middleton Cheney team were.." or club

• Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "As a result of his performances in the season," wouldn't it be just performance? either or's probably fine but i figured singular works best here since it refers to one season.

• Generally in cricket, you talk about performances in the season rather than performance over a season. In other words, he had several good performances. I've clarified it to "good performances". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "in a representative match for the first time when he played for the North against the South" could this be clarified a bit? Are we talking about north/south divisions, north/south parts of the country, etc.?

• Clarified (I think). I realised there is a (terrible) article about the fixture which I've linked, but I added a note as the article does not really explain the match played here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Up to the bowling controversy now, will finish tonight. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a rule that all cricket articles must be ridiculously long to simulate the effects of watching a cricket match. Though if you think you got off lightly, wait until you get to the parts about the no-ball law and square leg umpires. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol, would make sense. In that case I should be making longer baseball articles since that's no different. Anyway, here's the rest of my comments:

• This isn't a problem with the article itself, as it explains the bowling controversy well, but when I read the bowling actions article the pic looks like he's throwing the ball, which is clearly noted as not allowed; what is it I'm missing?

• The picture is a little confusing, but I think you may be mixing up the bowling arm with the leading arm. Without boring you with cricket technicalities, the arm holding the ball must not straighten (i.e. it can be bent but not straighten; most bowlers keep their arm totally straight at this point. Except that it is not quite as straightforward as that, but anyway...) once it begins its "delivery swing". Once the ball is released, it doesn't matter. If it is the last picture which you think looks like a throw, the arm which is bent is his leading arm which has swung around. His bowling arm is still straight and hidden by his body. It is not a clear picture at all, and the only way to tell is the "whoosh" lines which show that his arm has moved. A throw is when the bowling arm straightens before the ball is bowled. I'm sure that is not even slightly clear! --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• If you want to see what it looks like properly, this shows the best bowling action I know of. This is how it should be done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Lancashire in Nottingham on 26 June.[5]Early " add the space after ref

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• There's a couple sentences that start with but. It's not forbidden, but I've never been a fan of that as it reads a bit sloppy, so ideally that would be fixed.

• I quite like it myself sometimes! But removed anyway... :) --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• "the MCC approved the scheme previously suggested:" a comma would probably be better than a colon here.

• I don't think a comma would actually work, and I've used a dash instead. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold and will pass it once those couple things are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

All done, I think. Thanks for the review. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, and I think I get the bowling stuff now, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Self Restraint?

Please, all you happy cricket nuts, can you please hold yourselves to just one featured article a year about cricketers? Especially dead white male cricketers.

The world is such a big place. Same goes for Dreadnought Battleships, coins struck by the US Mint, and Video Games.

Slip them in to the did you know etc., but featured articles should be one a year max...

"Did You Know the dead white male cricketers appear on Wikipedia's Feature Article page more than any other topic than Dreadnought Battleships?"

Thanks! 72.141.106.240 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

How about no, cockhead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.23.233 (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above and ... esoteric without elaboration of what is "unfair" about Mold's throwing

This article is dominated by the "suspicions" that "condemned" Mold's "dubious" and "unfair" technique which "erupted" controversy.

For anyone unfamiliar with cricket this is frustratingly incomprehensible without a visit to the articles bowling action, delivery, and throwing. I suggest this be better summarized early in the present article. Something like: "only the rotation of the shoulder may be used to impart velocity to the ball. If the elbow is straightened more than 15 degrees it is considered 'throwing', one of the most serious and controversial charges that can be made." --Cornellier (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)