Talk:Richie Benaud/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 00:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow April 15? I almost feel like I should apologise for that somehow. Anyway I am starting the review now and will be going through the article over the next couple of days and putting my comments in so you can address anything I end up findin.

I see a couple of quick things right off the bat. All my notes will be below the GA box that will serve as the summary. I will not outright fail any section if I feel like it is something that can be addressed and I am sure everything can be corrected. Word to the wise,I know NOTHING about Cricket, but this is supposed to be a Good Article, not a Good Cricket Article, so hopefully that will not stand in my way. MPJ-US  00:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Reviewer comments

• There are 2 "citation needed" tags in the text and I agree they are needed.

Lead section

• the lead paragraph that'll begins with Gideon Haigh described him... does not seem to be found anywhere in the actual article, the lead should generally not contain something not covered in the article too.
• Too short, basically stops at 1963, should summarise the entire subject matter.

Images

• The info box image has some copyright issue tags that needs to be addressed. Picture is from 1956, the public domain I do on the page refers to "before 1955" so I am not sure this is public domain?
• File:BenaudEarly.jpg - same problems, copyright conflict tag

• This image has no caption, nothing to indicate it's purpose in that section

• File:RBenaud1953.jpg - and again although that one is from 1953 so that may be alright, not sure?
• File:Richie Benaud graph.png - checks out
• File:Richie Benaud.jpg - looks good

Neutrality

There are some terms that kinda stick out as not neutral and no attributable source for the phrase, consider revising some of these.

• " thoughtful leg spin"
• "His only victim was the"
• "paid to any hopes of quick rise to international cricket."
• " against the tourists" - Makes them seem like they're a bunch of guys in flip-flops and shorts drinking beers
• "he forced his way into the team"
• "his victims including Test batsmen Miller"
• "His instinctive, aggressive captaincy and daring approach to cricket – and his charismatic nature and public relations ability", it is either unsourced or attributed to Benaud's own book (ref 54)?
• "His aggressive tactical style brought large crowds throughout the season", there is a source for the attendance of one game, not the season and not attributing this to Benaud.
• "ended in a painful draw when"
• "Benaud was awarded life membership by the New South Wales Cricket Association, but he returned it in protest in 1970 when his younger brother John was removed from the captaincy." I am not seeing a source on this one, which could be classified as "contentious" and should have some sort of attributable source.
• I do not see where source #94 covers the statements starting with "He openly criticized the actions by the"?
• "He also walked off the commentary booth" made it sound like he walked away in protest, but he did it to give Smith the microphone right?
• " Billy Birmingham's impersonations of Benaud on The Twelfth Man comedy recordings have become legendary,"

Coverage and readability

• This gets into a LOT of detail on his matches, not being an expert on Benaud I feel like the sections "Early Years", "Early Test Years", "Consolidation", "Peak Year and captaincy" and "late career" basically recaps every single game he played in. I get lost in the Cricket lingo and gets a bit TL:DR that will turn non-Cricket fans off. Could some of this perhaps be summarized?
• In the "Late career" section there is a TON of detail on one match, I think it may be a bit excessive
• The sentence "In November 2014, at age 84, Benaud announced that skin cancer had been diagnosed" does not sound right, perhaps "that he had been diagnosed with skin cancer" instead?

I've made a few changes to the "Early Years" section which will hopefully made it more readable, and, in one case, more accurate. I can't say as I agree with the thought that all games are described. The sentence "Benaud was cementing his position and was in the senior team for four consecutive matches even with the Test players available" shows that a number are skipped over. The section details those incidents in his early career which are significant and I think this is important as it describes the ups and downs of a young sportsman finding his way. I think it's of reasonable length and detail. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Citations

• In section "Later career" there is no citation for the tickertape parade claim?
• I am not thrilled with his books being sourced by "googling Richie Benaud Book", that list returns any and all results where Benaud was mentioned or wrote them. the "Book" results at the top of the page did not include all the books listed either. I think something more specific is needed.

Non GA notes

• This may be me not knowing Cricket lingo but the phrase "The Caribbeans were skittled for" sounds odd, not sure what that means.
• Again Cricket lingo? "his form with the willow"?
• The external link tool on this page kicked out a few small issues, not part of the GA as such but might be worth looking at?

• I think that's it, grammatically it is fine but i get lose in the avalanche of details at times, which is a shame because it's an interesting subject. MPJ-US  03:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I see some activity going on here and there, considering how long this has sat I am going to give it a bit more time before I go through it and check off anything that has been addressed and see where we go from there.  MPJ-US  19:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Perry Middlemiss: - So this is getting better, but there is no changes on the image front as far as I can tell, that's a problem for GA and I am not sure how to solve that? Everything else can be addressed with simple copyediting, but the images needs something beyond on that to resolve the issues.  MPJ-US  13:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: It still needs a fair amount of work and I'll look into the image questions. Might need to see if there is anyone in the Wikipedia Australia cricket community who can help out. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Query

MPJ-DK, Perry Middlemiss, where does this stand now? I don't see a single edit to the article from Perry Middlemiss since September 22, and it's November 1. I realize that this nomination dates back to April, and deserves some special consideration, but six weeks without progress is significant. Perhaps the nomination could be formally put on hold with a deadline set (one week? two?) by which meaningful progress needs to be seen? I hope this stalled nomination can get moving again soon. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My fault entirely as I got distracted by other things. I'll aim to put some work into it over the coming week and we can re-evaluate it after that. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

MPJ-DK, Perry Middlemiss, it has been another three weeks. Can we have that re-evaluation soon, please? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes to the article but I can now see that I'll have to obtain a copy of the main reference book (ie Benaud's autobiography) to complete the work. And given I'm under time-constraints elsewhere I can't see that happening in the immediate future. Therefore I suggest we drop the GA re-evaluation at this time and look at it again next year. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've closed the GA nomination per your request. You're more than welcome to nominate the article again once you've completed the work. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)