Talk:William Walker (Australian cricketer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 07:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this shortly. Harrias ^talk 07:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay; my daughter has been ill over the weekend, so I've been quite busy. (Nothing serious, but time-consuming nonetheless!) Harrias ^talk 08:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't worry about this. Please do take care of your daughter. I hope she is recovering and is in the pink of health soon. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I think it would be worth clarifying in the lead that Walker was born in England: "... was an English-born Australia cricketer." perhaps?
Citations are only needed in the lead for direct quotes, so those that are currently there are not needed, but "one of the finest cricketers of his time". Does need one.
It might be worth clarifying his playing role a bit more in the lead - you mention that he is an underarm bowler, but was that his primary role, or was he an all-rounder?
It would be worth expanding the infobox to include the statistics for the two first-class matches he played. I know these aren't really representative of his career as a whole, but it is the information we have.
- Have completed the changes to the lead as suggested. Will do rest below now. Xender Lourdes (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

To achieve GA status, this section could really do with some expansion. I've had a look around some Newspaper archives, but I've struggled to find much information. Unfortunately, the name Walker is quite common, which makes it harder, but given the claim that he "gained fame in cricket" during this time, it seems something of an omission to have so little information.
- I have combined the Early life and Professional career section to give more substance to the section. Tell me how it looks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professional career

Write "Messrs" out in full.
- Done. Xender Lourdes (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket career

Attribute the quote "one of the finest cricketers of his time" inline: the finest according to whom?
The article says that Walker scored "60 in an 1860 Northern Tasmania versus Western Tasmania", but the ESPNcricinfo source says that it was for the North against the South?
"scoring one of the only two centuries scored" Repetition of "score" is unnecessary.
"He played 2 first-class" Write single digit numbers out, "two".
"Albeit his all-round capabilities.." "Despite" would work better than "Albeit".
- I have incorporated the above changes too. Xender Lourdes (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Given that you specify the date of his death, after saying the funeral was two days later, it isn't necessary to specify that date also. Harrias ^talk 09:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Xender Lourdes (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on the above tomorrow. A small note with the Early life section. I've taken some inspiration from the Henry Fox article and think that combining the Early life and Professional career section might give the combined section more substance than making each of them stand alone. What might you feel? Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have completed all the changes you recommended. I shall await any further review. Thanks Harrias for the time taken. Xender Lourdes (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. I've made a few tweaks, and I just have a couple of outstanding concerns.

I've done a bit of research on his time in England, and I'm not sure how "famous" he and his team were. I've found little information of note in Newspaper Archives, and he isn't mentioned in Altham and Swanton's "A History of Cricket" at all. It might be worth tempering the language surrounding this, to merely mentioning that he played and ran his own team.

(Done. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know how much information there is, but it would be nice to highlight some performances: give a bit more detail about his century for Derwent, and maybe put a bit about his first-class matches - I note that he kept wicket and bowled in both, which is interesting to highlight (although the article talks about him being a true all-rounder, a modern reader would be surprised to find out that he did them all in the same match). Harrias ^talk 20:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias I've done the first part of your suggestion. I've kept the weekend aside to work on the second part. Will update you on that and get back to you for any support if required. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Harrias. I got taken a bit ill and could not work on the article till now. I am now better and will do so this weekend. Ty. Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that Xender hasn't edited since the above. Most of the above is fixed though so unsure how the reviewer wants to proceed in this case. Wizardman 14:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really about at the moment unfortunately to look at this properly, but from a quick glance, I'm a little unsure that an article of this depth (or lack thereof) is sufficient for a player described in the lead as a leading cricketer and "one of the finest cricketers of his time". Harrias ^talk 16:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, Xender Lourdes has just reappeared on Wikipedia and has made over ten edits on the latest RfA. I think the requested work here needs to be started in the next few days; if not, it's time to close this. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, Harrias, I have tried to find out more about the individual but have not been able to. So as much as I can, this is the best I can do for this article. If there are other style/layout corrections that may push this article to GA status, it would be good; otherwise, if Harrias thinks otherwise, I think we should then close this review. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When Harrias does return, I'd agree on just closing the review. On a look myself I have the same concerns, but tried looking for more information myself and came up empty. Wizardman 15:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wizardman. Will search again and renominate this article in case I find material to add more content. Xender Lourdes (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments: Wizardman asked me to have a quick look at this.

On the length of the article, I'm pretty sure this is all that there is available. I don't think he was that important as a cricketer, to be honest. I suspect the main source for this article may be over-estimating the importance of Walker.
Tasmanian cricket, to be harsh, was not exactly of the highest standard for a long time; the team didn't even play in the Australian cricket competitions until the 1960s and were considered very weak until this period. How even the best player in Tasmania could be rated "one of the finest cricketers of his time" is a huge question. There were many, many better cricketers in Australia than him! I note that even the contemporary obituary does not make many claims for him as a cricketer.
I question the main source here, the Cricinfo profile. Some of these early profiles on Cricinfo are dubious at best, written before the site became more professional, and I have never heard of Thomas Rose, and can't really find much more that he wrote. I'm not sure that this has much more merit than a random blog.
"Walker remains the last under-arm bowler to have played for Tasmania": I have some doubts about this, and I'd prefer to see it cited to a more reliable source. Underarm bowling carried on for at least 30 years after he retired, and I find it hard to believe that no other underarm bowlers played for Tasmania. I could be wrong, but as I say, I'd like another source to back it up.
Overall, I'd be reluctant to pass this as a GA as it stands. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My responses. Xender Lourdes (talk) along with thanks to both Sarastro1 and Wizardman

Hello Sarastro1. Thanks for chipping in as the inputs are very valuable. I've given my views below sequentially. Irrespective of my views and irrespective of where the GA review goes, please do accept my thanks for taking your time out and agreeing to provide a second analysis (especially for a GA review that was but almost closed above):

Length of the article and importance of Walker: I agree with you on that this is all that there is significantly available. With respect to his importance given to Walker, I think the main source is mentioning that he was one of foremost cricketers of Tasmania of his time. I have reworded the lede to say that Walker was one of the notable Tasmanian cricketers of his times. Given that Walker features in Cricket Tasmania's team of the decade for the relevant years, having scored one of the only two centuries of that decade (as confirmed by another reliable Cricket Tasmania source) and given that even the 1886 obituary says he brought cricketing into great prominence, the reworded mention of Walker being one of Tasmania's notable cricketers seems acceptable. Do suggest if the reworded lines look alright to you.
About Tasmanian cricket and "one of the finest cricketers of is time": I've reworded the "one of the finest cricketers of his time" to "one of Tasmania's notable cricketers", which is documented by multiple sources and not just Thomas Rose's review. With respect to Tasmanian cricket, you mention that "the team didn't even play in the Australian cricket competitions until the 1960s". I think you're referring to international level competitions. The Tasmanian team featured in the first first-class cricket match played in Australia in 1851 and played multiple first-class matches post that. I wrote the article relating to that and am currently improving the article on that match for an FA review. Having said that, you're right that the Tasmanian team was a weak team as it was significantly represented by amateurs during those times. As mentioned, I have reworded Walker's notability with respect to being Tasmania's notable cricketers (it applies more so, if the Tasmanian team was weak, which is already mentioned in the article), which is, as I mentioned above, supported by multiple sources.
Thomas Rose's review and his credentials: You've said you could not find much of what else Thomas has written. Thomas Rose has been a much respected writer at ESPN. In June 2000, he wrote a collection of profiles and news snippets of multiple Australian cricketers of the initial era. The review that is mentioned on Walker's profile is quoted from that collection. The collection has been featured at multiple places on ESPN: Rose's profile of Robert McDowall, of John Marshall, a piece on Henty. External news sites like Cricket County also quote Thomas Rose. He has additionally done many news and analysis stories for ESPN, for example: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

Having said that, as mentioned before, I've drilled down even Thomas' statement of Walker being the foremost cricketer to Walker being one of the notable Tasmanian cricketers.

I've changed the last underarm bowler statement to an underarm bowler. Do tell if this seems fine.
I've done a few quick edits for your perusal. If you would like to suggest more changes, do tell. Please do note my thanks to you again for investing the effort to provide frank and valuable comments. I do realize that this GA review would have been closed much before, but for your and Wizardman's effort to re-review. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this isn't looking too bad now. Just a few other points:

I always thought that using birth/baptismal records as a source was not really a reliable source, although I know there are occasional exceptions. I'm a touch uncomfortable using them here, but could be persuaded.
Saying "Considered one of Tasmania's notable cricketer" or "Considered one of Tasmania's notable cricketer of his time" seems a bit too weak. What about something like "one of Tasmania's best cricketers" or "most effective cricketers"?
Maybe quote that obit about "bringing into prominence"? That's quite a nice quote.
Point taken on Thomas Rose, although I still suspect he comes from the time when Cricinfo was a little more rustic. There are lots of those early profiles, and they are uniformly terrible but most have been replaced now! And I've never quite been convinced by Cricket Country as they tend to just rehash longer wikipedia articles at times! But that isn't a matter for this review, and Rose (and anything on Cricinfo) is more than acceptable for a RS.
It's a shame there isn't more on him as he sounds an interesting chap. Maybe some of the early Australian histories have bits and pieces. I'll have a look this week if I can see anything, but I think that this is more than comprehensive enough for GA based on the available sources.
I think it's up to Wizardman or Harrias now, but from a cricket viewpoint, this would be fine content-wise. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Sarastro1 and thanks again for the helpful inputs. I've written my responses sequentially once again:

The birth/baptismal records was put there by Harrias himself, who I know as one of the most astute checkers of references. Personally, I am comfortable with the reference if he has put them there.
I've changed "considered one of Tasmania's notable cricketers" to "was one of Tasmania's leading cricketers". I feel the word "best" is too straightforward (just an opinion) and "most effective" is subjective, because even when Walker performed well, Tasmania lost. If you feel the word "best" is better than "leading", I'll change it to "best".
"bringing into prominence" quoted in the obituary section.

As I said before, thanks for giving this review another chance. Will wait for Wizardman's inputs and approval if the article seems okay. Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the length is still iffy for me, it is otherwise comprehensive, and if Sarastro is comfortable with this being a GA as it stands than so am I. Wizardman 11:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]