Talk:Tup Scott/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 16:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this has been sat around for a while, so I'll pick this up. I'd left it, given that I reviewed the 1884 article, but maybe you can cope with my picky-ness again! Harrias ^talk 16:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Could you provide a reference for the note on "Test cricket" not being used as a term until the 1890s.
"Born at Toorak, Victoria in 1858.." The use of "at" seems odd; would "in" not be more appropriate?
Per WP:CRIC#STYLE, bowling figures should use a slash not a dash, so his best bowling should be noted 6/33.
"But it was as a middle order batsman that Scott developed into an international player." This sentence reads a little clumsily to me; could it be rephrased somehow?
"..after the 1886 Australian tour of England, on which he was Australia's captain." ; "Scott was captain of the 1886 Australian team in England.." This is somewhat repetitive, I would suggest merging these in some way to avoid the need to mention it twice.

First-class career

"at the Association Ground[notes 2] in Sydney." I'd just move the note to the end of the sentence; it breaks things up a bit too much where it is.
"He scored just 2 and 0 but.." Per MOS:NUM single digit numbers should be written; there are more examples where this should be changed later in the article. It would be worth noting, as this is the first instance in the bulk of the article, that it was runs he scored.
"..by taking a career-best 6–33 in a total of 120–9.." as above with regards to using a slash rather than a dash.
"..., New South Wales winning the match by 1 wicket despite his efforts." The tense change here, while understandable is a little odd to read; how about "..., though despite his efforts New South Wales won the match by one wicket."
"scored 114 not out" Link not out.
"..with the Fourth Australians.." Explain who the "Fourth Australians" were, even if just by linking the term to the relevant tour article.
As discussed at the GA review for that article, I don't think the number in First Test, Second Test etc needs to be capitalised.

Reviewed to end of 1884 tour of England section, more to follow. Harrias ^talk 15:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As OldLanky has vanished for the moment, Harrias asked me to see about making the fixes on this one. I've had a stab. I think I took care of most, although possibly not all, of the points above and have given the whole article a tidy-up and re-order. However, I have put a couple of citation needed tags on it, as what is stated is not given in the reference. I have no access to any appropriate information, so I've pinged Mattinbgn, as he had the two books used in this article once upon a time. If he can't help, we could either remove the contentious material, or just fail the whole article. In addition, some of the phrasing just leaves me a bit twitchy, and although I've reworded quite a bit, I'd like someone to check for close paraphrasing if possible. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given Old Lanky's disappearance, and the remaining issues with this article, I feel I have no option but to fail it at this time. With a little more work and some cleaning up, this can definitely achieve GA status in the future, but right now it just isn't quite ready. Harrias ^talk 12:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]