Talk:Adelaide leak

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mkativerata (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Just starting the review now. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

All looks good - only little comments. I should note that I haven't checked sources, I don't have ready access to any of them. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the first couple of sections are below, the rest will follow:

Lead

• I wonder if "Test" might not be best wikilinked to Test cricket, thus removing the need to wikilink it (or even mention "Test") in the following sentence. Ordinarily I wouldn't think it necessary but the first sentence doesn't mention cricket at all so the wikilink might help contextualise the article.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Background

I wonder whether there could be opportunities to pare down this section a bit. At this stage, one has to go more than halfway through the article's prose before hitting the subject matter, being the leak. On the other hand, I do recognise the importance of setting out the involvement of all the key actors (Wooffull, Bradman, Fingleton, Warner, Jardine, etc).

Hmmm... I may be able to trim some, but I do think that a substantial background is needed or the leak doesn't make any sense except "Oh, really? So what?" I think context is needed to show how big a deal it was. However, let me know if you consider anything superfluous. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. It could probably only be done by losing a sentence or half-sentence here and there so might not make much difference. I'll leave it to you.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• "cricket ball" - is there any need for "cricket"?
• "Jardine's appointment" - it might be good to clarify what the appointment was, the only mention of Jardine previously being that he "led" the English team, from which it isn't explicitly clear that he was the captain.
• "Yorkshire bowler Bill Bowes who had also tried similar tactics at the end of the season, and in one match had bowled short at Jack Hobbs." This sentence seems to be missing something.
• "...was highly critical of Bowes and the other Yorkshire bowlers." - what was the basis of the criticism?
• ...and he may have met senior batsmen Wally Hammond and Herbert Sutcliffe." - what's the purpose of this, surely he met his own batsmen on a long see voyage? If it was to discuss Bodyline tactics like they were being discussed with Larwood, it could be made clearer.
• "Meanwhile, Woodfull, was being encouraged" - I don't think the second comma is warranted.

All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Warner–Woodfull incident

• "Although the comment was aimed at unnerving Bradman" - wouldn't Bradman have been sitting in the dressing room at the time?

He was batting, which wasn't clear. Changed now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• "According to the original newspaper reports and Fingleton's later account, Woodfull was lying on the masseur's table, awaiting treatment from a doctor, although this may have been an exaggeration to increase the drama of the account, and Leo O'Brien described Woodfull as wearing a towel around his waist, having showered." Breaking this sentence in two might help readibility, but up to you.

Agree, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Leak

• This section is great - very interesting reading with clear prose.
• I think Wisden ought to be wikilinked.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Images

• All public domain.

Comprehensiveness

• Fully covers the incident and provides sufficient contextul background and commentary on the aftermath.

Factually accurate and verifiable

• I don't have access to any of the offline sources, but all parts of the article are sourced to apparently reliable sources. I've checked the couple of accessible references and they both fully support the content of the article from which the sources are cited.

Stable

• Thankfully Bradman and Fingleton's families haven't edit-warred over the article.

Minor issues

• Is there any reason the article title is "Adelaide leak" but the first sentence treats it as a proper noun?
• A couple of the captions have full stops/periods but they aren't complete sentences (not a GA issue though).
• The lead could probably be split into two paragraphs. I'd suggest "Many people at the time" but I'll leave it up to you whether to split it (it's not a GA issue).

All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• All done now hopefully, and thanks for the review. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Passed, thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bradman and Firth or Mant

It sounds like Bradman died before Firth published his book. But did Firth or Mant ever ask Bradman about the info from Helen? Also is the timeline right? It sounds like Corbett died in 1944 and Fingleton in 1978 first said Bradman was the source. But then Bradman with Michael Page made a deal out of the fact the accusation only came after Corbett's death (when he could no longer dispute the claim) even if specifically it was ~34 years after that death (which to me anyway, makes it seem less dubious then if it was held for 40 years and then revealed a year after the only other person who definitely knew died). Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The source does not say if either Frith or Mant spoke to Bradman over the info from Corbett, but IMO it is unlikely: Mant specifically asked Frith not to reveal details while Bradman was still alive. I'm not quite sure what you mean about the timeline. I've added a note that Mant investigated in the mid-90s, which was not quite clear originally. Fingo claimed Corbett told him while they worked together as journalists; he revealed his version in '78, pretty much out of the blue and for no obvious reason. Bradman's rebuttal followed, and then the Mant story only came out in Frith's book. I've added a bit more to hopefully clarify this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Duplication of Bodyline?

A huge amount of this article just rehashes what is in the bodyline article - can they not be merged, or can this article be cut back so it focuses more on the leak? Interplanet Janet (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Saying a "huge amount" is a little melodramatic. At most, two paragraphs are similar, but they are required to give the leak some context. If it began with the leak, it would make little sense, and the reader should not have to read the Bodyline article to understand this one. In addition, this introduction gives more focus to Warner and Woodfull than the main article ever could or should. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's more than two paragraphs - the whole of the background and aftermath sections at least are all about bodyline itself rather than the leak. I understand the need for context, but more than half the article is context. Interplanet Janet (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

But it is not repeating the Bodyline article, which is what you originally said. And even if it is about "Bodyline", it is directly concerned with the people involved in the leak, what they did and why. To take the background section: Paragraph 1 is a general introduction. Para 2 concerns experimenting with the tactics and Warner's disapproval of the method (crucial to understanding one aspect of the leak). Para 3 is more background to the use of the tactics and, again, Warner's reaction and disagreement with Jardine. Next paragraph is about Bradman, and his state of mind in the series, and again crucially, his poor relationship with Fingleton. The last paragraph is about the first two Tests, to set up the events of the third. The next section is the Warner-Woodfull incident. In all literature on Bodyline, this "incident" is part of the leak, not a separate event. So all this section is not context, it is a direct part of the events which have become known as the Adelaide Leak. All of this is fully reflected in the sources and none of it is just padding. It is all part of the "story". Sarastro1 (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:SIZE, particularly the section on splitting. --Dweller (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong state

"From their first meeting while playing together for Victoria"

Surely this should be NSW? Neither of the two (Bradman or Fingleton) played for Victoria. Tigerman2005 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct, much obliged for spotting that one. Now fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating

This is by far the most interesting and unexpected FA I have ever come across. Kudos, not just to those who contributed, but to those who pushed it through the queue to appear on the Main Page. 50.193.171.69 (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont get it

I dont understand why this is significant and why a big deal was made. All because Woodfull rudely responded and "disrespected"(if you even want to call it that) Warner? A big deal was made because of this????? I read about worst things daily in the sports column. I dont get why such a big deal was made over such an insignificant incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.3.79 (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the latest in a series of articles that have appeared as the Featured Article of the day about utterly minor incidents that are simply one padded-out facet of a much wider issue (in this case, the Bodyline series) and to which WP has ascribed an invented name that is not in use out in the real world. Virtually no one else appears to call this "the Adelaide leak" from what I can tell after having to wade through Google results listing loads of directory entries for South Australian plumbers and WP-reprint books. Even reading the article, only about 20% of it is about the "leak" itself, which, looking at the footnotes, seems to be an incident covered across about four or five pages of one very detailed detailed 500-page book. The rest of the entry here is background about, er, the Bodyline series and its aftermath, which of course has its own page. This should be but a brief mention within that page and the article should have been merged with it as soon as it was created. N-HH talk/edits 09:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This happened 80 years ago, when such events were totally unheard of. Back then, it really was a huge deal. GurraJG (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But how exactly does it mean that it needs its own WP page, let alone to be TFA? Whether you or I think it was a big deal, in terms of being unusual for the time, or not is neither here nor there: for articles here, we need evidence of notability. AFAICT, this incident is usually discussed as one aspect of the Bodyline series, a widely reported on and written about issue. It is not known as the "Adelaide leak" and it is not written about as a discrete topic in its own right. Looking up the talk page, it seems I'm not the only one asking questions about these problems. N-HH talk/edits 10:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how it managed to get FA. When i first accessed the article, I was expecting it to mention how the guy got hit in the heart, went to the dressing room and passed away from the hit, and not a whole journalist uproar. It is the weirdest article I've ever seen.--Mjs1991 (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A few replies. I'm impressed that you are so familiar with cricket and "Bodyline" literature that you can state "virtually no one else appears to call this" by this title. On the contrary, most books on the subject call it this; I could give a direct ref if required. Google does not have all the answers, I'm afraid, and the books establish notability. The article, if you read it, hopefully explains why it is a big deal. It was the leak which was unprecedented. I replied above on the "one aspect" idea: that everything here directly concerns the leak or the people associated. On whether it should be a FA or TFA, the pages to address this were at WP:FAC or WP:TFAR. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's why I said no one appears to call it this, and why I used the acronym for "as far as I can tell" subsequently. Nor did I say that Google has all the answers. I'm just suggesting that, prima facie, the evidence is pretty weak. I did also go a bit further than that and try to work out where in the Frith book this is all sourced to (I do not have access to the contents and never claimed to). As noted, it appears to be a run of a few pages. If you could quote me where it is afforded the title "the Adelaide leak", that would be helpful and would be the first small step on the road to being an actual rebuttal of anything I've said as opposed to vague justifications (I'd argue we'd need more than one use of the term in one book anyway). And, as per my response to GurraJG, individual editor assertions that something is "unprecedented" or "unheard of" is not what WP notability is about. I still haven't seen any WP policy- or evidence-based argument as to why this is anything other than a paragraph in the main Bodyline article, and/or in the individual articles of the people involved, as opposed to a discrete, notable topic in its own right, which is known by this name. Looking at the Bodyline article, I see that such a para already exists. Why do we have this article too, with all its repeated and duplicated background material, which is also in the Bodyline article? As for making FA and TFA, this merely reveals the apparent flaws in the processes. N-HH talk/edits 11:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In Frith's Bodyline book, he states the event "has become known as the Adelaide Leak", I think on p 187 (I don't have the exact page to hand, but this issue came up at peer review). Frith is the expert on this. There are other references too, but I don't have access at the moment. The unprecedented idea also comes from the sources, as cited in the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To quote L. P. Hartley "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there". One day even the Lady Gaga article will seem superfluous. Thincat (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Lady who? -- DevSolar (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)