Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Ashes/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 14:29, 4 December 2007.

The Ashes

Review commentary

Notified WT:CRIC, WP:AWNB, Sam Vimes (talk · contribs), Moondyne (talk · contribs), Jguk (talk · contribs), Jhall1 (talk · contribs)

An FA about the cricket sereis between Australia and England. Promoted in 2005. There are many problems

1a) Prose is not adequate. There is a lot of hyperbole and sports-news type writing. A lot of peacock statements and weasel words.
1b) Not comprehensive. Some decades only have one sentence for four or five consecutive series. There is not enough general stuff outside of the formative history and the cricket. eg, cricket tourism and commerce and so forth.
1c) Some inaccurate and dubious claims. eg Benaud is mentioned as Australia's main bowler of his era. However Davidson took many more wickets at lower cost and is not mentioned. Mentioning Langer and Martyn as "greats" of the 1990s and omitting Slater who made many centuries against England. Many of the comments about key players, key moments seem to be a bit arbitrary and not reflecting the general pundit consensus.
1d) Undue weight. Some decades only have one sentence, some in some cases, one series has a whole paragraph. The most notable series, Bodyline and the Invincibles are not discussed particularly thoroughly in relation to the less notable things.
2c)Not sourced sufficiently. Many non black-white assertions about key players, subjective stuff are not referenced

In general the article needs a lot of work, not just in cleanup, but it needs a lot of detailed research since it seems to miss out on some key points and overstate some that are not so important. A lot of research needs to be done to work out which parts of the history is missing and which is unimportnant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one thing wrong with the article but it is a very substantial one thing. The match series section should be completely removed apart from statements linking to the appropriate Test series articles and/or categories. By trying to summarise all the series, you are duplicating information that is appropriately held in other parts of WP:CRIC. This article is supposed to be about the Ashes as a legend and as a trophy, though clearly it needs some coverage of the 1882 series and the Ivo Bligh series that followed it; I would also refer to the revival of the legend in the Warner tour of 1903-04. But trying to include information about individual series is a recipe for disaster because the article will never be finished. Essentially this is all about scope. A clear statement of scope needs to be made at the top of the article. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion, BlackJack. Appropriate linking to daughter articles would work nicely, perhaps with a list/summary. --Dweller 22:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if references like "Harte, pp.251 256" are supposed to be "Harte, pp.251–256" and not the two separate pages? Pagra shtak 16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it's supposed to be a dash. I put them in and used teh wrong code with a space. At the time I was using a really old computer which displayed tings funny so I thought it was the machine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), undue wieght (1d). Marskell 13:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove—This is all that has been done since nomination. Woefully under-referenced and there are serious problems in the prose. Tony (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, unless someone plans to do a lot of work soon. There are mixed reference styles, copyedit needs, and MOS issues (WP:MSH, WP:MOSDATE, WP:DASH, WP:Images#Captions, WP:ITALICS, MOS:CAPS#All caps, WP:GTL at least, more than I can undertake to fix on my own, especially considering the citation issues). There are several expansion requests and citation tags. Look at the Table of Contents relative to WP:MOSDATE:
- 3.9 1932/33 Series
- 3.17 2006–07 series SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.