Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2019

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Featured log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Laser brain (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 11 April 2019 (add 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2019 [1].

The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Colossus of Rhodes is a minor but striking painting from Salvador Dalí’s later career. Firmly within the avant-garde in the 1930s, by the 1940s and 1950s Dalí was more interested in the world around him than the world inside him. He also had an expensive lifestyle to maintain, which was no doubt helped by the commissioning of this painting as a movie poster for a film about the Seven Wonders. The painting typifies 1950s Dalí: interested in Hollywood and the historical, taking commissions for cash, and only mildly surrealist. Indeed, the work is influenced by an academic paper by the sculptor Herbert Maryon, whose theory for the construction of the Colossus appeared in dozens if not hundreds of newspapers soon before Dalí picked up his brush.

This article uses a wide variety of sources—about Dalí, the Colossus, this painting, and others paintings in the series—to describe and contextualize this work. It is certainly the most comprehensive take published; much more ink has been expended on Dalí’s more significant oils. Nearly a year ago it passed a good article review, and after some further refining and additions, it is ready to be featured. Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:The_Colossus_of_Rhodes_(Dalí).png needs a stronger FUR - for example "Not replaceable with free media because: Irreplaceable"
  • Yes - my point was that that bit doesn't really convey any information. If something isn't replaceable, of course it's irreplaceable. The question is why - this FUR needs a bit of expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

  • I've linked them in the new subsection; as they were before, they weren't linked because strictly speaking the names referred to the works by Dalí.
  • I think there could be a bit more background on the ancient statue itself, for example that it was destroyed, which would also explain to the reader why theories about how it was constructed had to be made.
  • Added a subsection to "Background" detailing the history of the Colossus.
  • Similarly, the statue itself should probably be linked presented in the background section rather than in the description, since that's where it is first discussed?
  • Done.
  • "In this context the painting "does not look extremely original." According to who? Such subjective quotes should be attributed in text.
  • Good point. Added.
  • "Dalí copied the likeness of the Colossus put forth by Maryon, clearly depicting hammered plates of bronze, and showing the same tripod structure with the statue supported by a piece of drapery.[18]" This, on the other hand, could go under description?
  • My intent is for "Description" to really just be a physical description of the painting, and "Themes" to be about what Dalí was influenced by.
  • "and had a segmented construction entirely composed of numerous individual plates" Why past tense? This describes the painting and not the actual statue?
  • No idea. Changed.
  • "giving "a vaguely Surrealist touch" to Dalí's work." Again a direct quote, who says this?
  • "focus on cinema and the historical and scientific" focus on cinema, the historical, and the scientific?
  • Done.
  • "and the loosening of his grip on surrealism." His loosening grip on surrealism?
  • Done.
  • "Nor does Dalí offer a particularly original take on the Colossus, which is heavily influenced by Maryon's suggestions" You say basically the same under background, so it seems repetitive. But it probably belongs down there rather than background.
  • Removed the redundancy.
  • Anything on the circumstances of the commission itself and why they weren't used?
  • No, I looked but couldn't find anything.
  • Who made the movie?
  • "and religious" Only stated in the intro.
  • It's under "Themes": the end of World War II introduced a focus on the historical, scientific, and religious, to Dalí's work.
  • "by a hanging piece of drapery" I think it could be clarified that this was sculpted, I first imagined a giant piece of actual cloth...
  • Changed to the Colossus would have been supported on its base by a third point of support in the form of hanging drapery.

FunkMonk, thanks for your comments. I've added a subsection on the history of the Colossus and moved the discussion of Maryon's paper there, which I believe responds to the majority of your comments. Responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

The article is very strong on historical context, and especially gives insight as to why Dali painted this frankly, very poor, work at the end of his career, having moved to the States. Fascinating stuff; none the less, the "description" section is under cooked, apart from it being described as "massive" etc. Would like to see more on the colors, themes, iconography, and esp. perspective, etc, etc; maybe because to my eyes none are equal to his earlier work. Don't see any aesthetic appraisal here as of yet, although have every confidence in the nominator in this area, and look forward to supporting.

The nominator should feel quite free to revert any of my changes if viewed as preferences, or if intended meaning has been changed. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed edits, Ceoil. I've made some changes, which I have tried to explain in the edit comments; please see what you think. As to the description, I've added another line based on a book I just ILL'd, and am due to pick up another one soon, so will see if I can add anything more. I suspect that there will not be much, however; most works that talk about this painting do so in passing (see here, for example, and a Google Translated copy of the Colossus section from book I just received), and focus less on the painting than on how it exemplifies Dalí's later works. How would you recommend dealing with this? I know Wikipedia tolerates largely-uncited plot summaries for fictional works, but am not sure if using one's own eyes to describe the basic attributes of a painting is similarly appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Usernameunique; briefly, I followed the changes while binge watching TV on Netflix. Agree with all your changes. Need to consider re sources; talk soon. Ceoil (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Given we have blue links, not sure that, by my estimate, almost a third of the article needs to be devoted to a general overview of the Colossus of Rhodes. I would trim this drastically. Ceoil (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in, I can't really agree, Ceoil... Yes when you say it like that, a third seems a lot, but I think when one reads it it does help one better understand the subject at hand. I mean lose the Caeser quote by all means, as we discuss "astride" anyway and even have a related image, but I think the rest works well and leads logically to the last para, which is obviously very closely related to the painting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would at least, as you say Ian, loose the quote, and the claim beginning with "the others are the". Would also drop "The Colossus is among the least recorded of the seven wonders" - "There are no extant contemporary depictions; the only evidence is textual" is enough. That's the kind of thing that could be used to trim it down and make proportional to this short article overall. I do think there are structural issues overall with the page, which to be fair to the nominator, I haven't had time to think about and detail yet. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, those judicious trims seem fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe also such details as "Sutton Hoo helmet.[10][11]" and "On 3 December 1953" (we already know 1953) and "the Society of Antiquaries of London" are extraneous. Not opposed to shorter articles being at FAC if focused and concise. I'm gathering this page is near the sum of the available sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense all around. The Shakespeare part is definitely indulgent. My turn to turn towards the sack, so I'll incorporate tomorrow. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The paintings for the film were made, yet went unused, is antiquated language, and this stuff is all over the article. Why not just "He produced other art works for the film, but they were not included in the final production." Ceoil (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested rephrasing shifts the topic of the sentence from the seven paintings made for the film to the six other paintings, not including the one on the Colossus. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article presents as art historical, but is too slight on such content for my taste. The majority of its content is on background detail, rather than on the painting, as promised in the article title, but barely described on reading. I have major issues with art articles being padded out with introductory paras on the mythology and histography of the subject matter and then on the artist; this is endemic on es. and de. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil, I've incorporated most of the changes recommended earlier. The two things I've thought best to keep are the names of the other seven wonders—an article about one is incomplete without mentioning all, it feels—and the clause about what Maryon is best known for (the Sutton Hoo helmet), which is somewhat tangential, but interesting (it's how I learned about the painting). Generally speaking, I do think we have different perspectives on this article. It's unclear how restructuring it by essentially combining half of it into one jumbled section, as you suggested, would make it better, but even more than that, I feel that removing the contextual information would make the article markedly worse. The section on the Colossus was added because of a suggestion, by FunkMonk, in this very FAC; meanwhile, the sources that discuss this painting use it to typify Dalí's later career—interested in the historic and scientific, not the surreal—and so not discussing Dalí's later career would leave this article substantially incomplete. As to your last comment, if you can indeed find a source in the bibliography that is not used in the article, I would be very surprised. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure I suggested a jumbled section. Quite the opposite. I don’t think the structure as stands is coheriant, esp with two, as framed, general history / bio background sections opening after the lead, that as framed, could be served by blue links.Ceoil (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, your "rough suggestion for structure" suggested in this edit was to create a six-paragraph "Inspiration and themes" section which seesawed between topics, and hid discussion of the painting—the focus of this article—in the middle. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hense the usage of the word rough, and note I immediately reversed that test edit. My worry here, is that after this page, barely dyk standard painting articles can now be considered at Fac. Ingres’ portrait of Napoleon? Easy... Napoleon was a...Ingres was a ....half the article done now. My oppose stands. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, maybe we should ask the others to weigh in here: FunkMonk, Ian Rose, Casliber, & Brianboulton. I think the background information helps explain the painting, but I'm also not the most objective person here. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I would point out here is we can't write what the sources don't, so if no source describes the painting in more detail, there is little we can do. And the FAC criteria do not demand this either, we can only reflect what the sources say. As for the added context, I think some of it could maybe be cut down, but I think there was too little until I asked for it. But Ceoil can of course compare the article before and after and see what is preferred:[2] If it is decided the earlier version is better, I will not oppose if it is reinstated, I only think it helps the reader, and makes the article more comprehensive, but this is of course a subjective issue. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes as long as it’s not lost is that at least half the page is background; not a good enough ratio, imo, for an FA, which will enviablly be held up as a standard to aim for. Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I've trimmed a bit from "Background." Reading it over again, however, I'm a bit confused by your general objection to this section. "The Colossus" section has a paragraph about the Colossus, generally, but the second paragraph is about Maryon's theory of the Colossus; this is directly relevant to the painting, which cribs Maryon's theory. The "Salvador Dalí" section, meanwhile, has a paragraph about Dalí's fascination with Hollywood, and a second paragraph about his commission for these paintings. Both of these seem quite relevant to the painting, evincing Dalí's general reasons for wanting to paint movie posters, and his specific commission for the movie. So what, specifically, would you remove? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the trimming now makes the section much more focused. Still not sure if "Salvador Dalí" is the most well chosen title for that section; it gives the impression of more general background padding, rather than as you say, "evincing Dalí's general reasons for wanting to paint movie posters".
  • Changed to "Dalí and Hollywood".
  • his popular 1930s surrealist movement heyday - It wasn't "his" 1930s surrealist movement - "The peak of his popularity during the 1930s surrealist movement"
  • I agree that this language—which you inserted here and here—is problematic. I have reverted it to my earlier wording.
  • In the lower right is signed "Salvador Dalí / 1954, "is signed" sounds very old fashioned; "The lower right had corner bears the signature...."
  • Reworded: In the lower right Dalí signed and dated the work "Salvador Dalí / 1954".
  • his loosening grip on surrealism - his move away from - its not that he had an intellectual hold on it even back in the day
  • "his move away from" does not appear in the article. Are you suggesting that that phrasing replace "his loosening grip of surrealism"? If so, no problem with that.
  • A piece of drapery hangs around the waist of Helios and from his left arm - "around his waist and left arm"
  • Reworded: A piece of drapery wraps around the waist of Helios and hangs from his left arm,
  • What is a "segmented construction entirely composed of numerous individual plates"
  • How would you rephrase? It means lots of (relatively) small, individual bronze plates stitched together into a whole. It is also seen in the image of the painting (which I wish could be larger), and alluded to earlier: Made of hammered bronze plates less than 1⁄16-inch (1.6 mm) thick, Maryon said, the Colossus would have been supported on its base by a third point of support in the form of hanging drapery.
  • The end of World War II introduced a focus on the historical, scientific, and religious to Dalí's work - The cause and effect is left vague here, ie you dont say why.
  • Reworded to give WWII less credit for the transformation. Per the source, "after the end of the Second World War a newfound interest in scientific, religious and historical subject-matter meant that the authenticity of Dalí's exploration of the subconscious began to drain away, to be replaced by something far more calculated in effect. Moreover, after 1940 a new banality often entered into Dalí's work".
  • a 1954 ink-on-cardboard work - Rather than "work" which is vague, maybe "composed with ink-on-cardboard".
  • Do you mean "a work composed with ink on cardboard"? That would still have the word "work", but in any event, I think the "ink-on-cardboard" modifier adequately illuminates the otherwise vague word "work".
  • Compared with Maryon's paper, wrote the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ, the painting "does not look extremely original". Wot. This is hard to parse on several levels; not least because the source its self seems confused or at least hyperbolic - "extremely original" seems like promo guff. Also " wrote the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ" sounds dated, as if very old sources were used.
  • Reworded the tense ("writes" rather than "wrote"). I think de Callataÿ's is just going for understatement.
  • Are all the listed sources used as foot notes.
  • Have taken liberties in trimming a bit further, mostly as per above. Anyways, Support, an interesting article to have taken on, esp. the revealing sections on Dalí in hollywood. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian

As a bit of Dali fan (as much for his involvement in Un Chien Andalou and L'Age d'Or as for his paintings, admittedly) I'm hoping to find time to recuse from coord duties to review -- consider this a placeholder till then... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Rose, I look forward to it. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of comments later, time to hit the sack now after my ce... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one of a series of seven paintings created for the 1956 film Seven Wonders of the World, each depicting one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. -- do you think we could lose the repetitive "each depicting one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World"; sure it leaves no-one in any doubt but I think it follows that if you're creating seven paintings for a film about the Seven Wonders...
  • That's mostly there to add the link to the Wonders (which also appears in the body). I've changed it to each depicting one of the eponymous wonders, but can just remove if you think that's still too obvious.
  • In 1955 he also executed a similar copy, Walls of Babylon -- do we mean "another version of Walls of Babylon"? If so, simpler to express that way I think.
  • Done.
  • Helios raises his right hand to shield his eyes from the sun that he is the god of -- I wonder (pun unintended) if we can lose that dangling "of"; "Helios raises his right hand to shield his eyes from his domain, the sun" or something like that?
  • Reworded. Helios raises his right hand to shield his eyes from the sun over which he reigns
That's about it prose-wise. Obviously a minor work in Dali's catalogue but not as bad as all that I think -- there is at least nice irony in the sun appearing more powerful than its god at this moment. Article seems comprehensive, and I'll take Nikki's image review as read. I wouldn't mind someone else checking sources but may be able to if no-one else does for while. Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Ian Rose. Responses are above. It's definitely not one of his more interesting paintings, but it's quite nice to look at—moreso than his others in the series, I think. And much as it has been said to exemplify a later-career lack of creativity on Dalí's part, it is interesting to see how he incorporated a sculptor's theory of the Colossus into his own depiction. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few changes since my last copyedit/review; no concerns for the most part but I did feel constrained to tweak a few things here and there. I'm certainly leaning support but I guess I'd like to see how Ceoil feels about the current version so we can all agree on the final cut. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, ready to pile on with support. Cheers, 23:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

The Colossus of Rhodes was a very large statue... - not fond of "very large" here, "monumental"? or put in the purported height?
Agreed. (It was originally "massive," and then changed in a copyedit above.) Have changed to "monumental."
Dalí's most important works are dated before 1940, when he was preoccupied with the subconscious and the nature of perception - "most important" is subjective, maybe "best-known"?
Changed to "most recognized." I don't think "best-known" quite encapsulates the point, which is less about how other people identify his works than about how the works are considered to fit into, and advance, artistic movements.

Otherwise reads well. Agree with Ceoil that the description section is a little light, but then again if there is no source elaborating then you can't really do much. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Casliber. Responses are above. Agreed that "description" is somewhat short, but I've added everything I've been able to find that describes it. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Fix ping: Casliber. --Usernameunique (talk)[reply]
Ultimately, its a tentative/weak support from me. It reads well, but a little bit problematic that under half the prose relates to the work itself. However, if there is no more on the description then that is not actionable, and I'd not remove any of the context as the context is about right I reckon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Spotchecks not done
  • The sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. You might add that the Badoud source language is French. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • The reproduction ia not very good. Would it be possible to use the better one at [3]?
  • Do you mean the quality, or the resolution? Unfortunately due to fair-use restrictions, we're limited to a small image. I chose the one in the article because of the colors, which are brighter than the one you link to.
  • I meant the resolution, although that may be due to the larger size. The image you use has brighter colours, but probably not more realistic. The Dali Foundation image is likely to be better and the clouds look to me the wrong colour in the image you use. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image in the article was copied from here, which is of reasonable resolution. Dalí does seem to have painted some clouds similarly (see, e.g., here, and it would be hard to tell which image is closer to reality without seeing the painting in person. The one you point to also has a watermark (bottom center), which I'm not wild about.
  • "was donated to its present location in the Kunstmuseum Bern." Donation to a location sounds odd to me. I would say donation to the museum.
  • "stood by the harbour of Rhodes for more than half a century in the third and fourth centuries BC" Fourth is wrong. The wiki article on the statue says that it was constructed in 280 BC and my 1973 Britannica says that it stood for 56 years until destruction in c. 224.
  • Whoops. Fixed.
  • It seems too off topic to list the other wonders in the background section. An alternative would be to link them below as Dali's paintings e.g. "of the Temple of Artemis" instead of Temple of Artemis.
  • Done.
  • "In his ninth-century AD Chronographia, Theophanes the Confessor recorded that its ruins remained until 652–53" As Theophanes was writing 150 years later perhaps "according to him" rather than he recorded.
  • Changed to "he wrote."
  • "The paintings for the film were made, yet went unused." This sounds a bit clumsy. Maybe "The paintings were not used in the film."
  • Changed to The paintings were ultimately not used for the film.
  • In the discussion of frauds in the last paragraph I am not clear whether you are referring specifically to lithographs of the Colossus or of his works as a whole.
  • The sources discuss Dalí's lithographs generally, not specifically referencing those of the Colossus of Rhodes (except for the first sentence, Lithographs replicating The Colossus of Rhodes are also frequently offered for sale.). That said, the fact that you can buy 202 lithographs of this work at once suggests that they are subject to the same problems as Dalí's other lithographs. I've also looked at a few books on his lithographs, and didn't see specific mention of those of the Colossus.
  • Done.


@FAC coordinators: The comments above have been fully addressed, and nothing is outstanding. Unless you have further requests, I think this is ready to move forward. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 4 April 2019 [4].

Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 11:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most bizarre incidents in the history of cricket occurred in 1979, when Somerset captain Brian Rose chose to declare his team's innings after one over, manipulating a loophole in the rules which meant they couldn't suffer a heavy defeat and be knocked out of the competition. Needless to say, it didn't go down well ("It's not cricket!) and Somerset were subsequently thrown out of the competition. I think this is a really interesting subject for an article, and hopefully you'll agree. It's been subject of both a Good article review and a Peer review, and now I submit it for your thoughts. Harrias talk 11:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dweller

Smashing article. Lack of illustration is a shame. Could [[:]] help? Personally, I'd consider splitting the last section into what happened in the immediate aftermath and therafter. There are also parallels to this in other sports, might be worth thinking about how to handle them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Thanks, I've split the final section as suggested, though I struggled with the headings. Hopefully what I've settled on works? I'm trying to find an image; unfortunately the fair-use image rules wouldn't allow us to use that one of Atkinson. I'm hoping to get a free image of Brian Rose, which would work well, but we'll see how I do. Otherwise, like Sarastro suggests below, I'll probably stick one of the ground in. Are there are parallels that particularly spring to mind for you? Harrias talk 11:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a good way forward on the photos. Try this Barbados_4–2_Grenada_(1994_Caribbean_Cup_qualification). Probably POV to include in article but maybe see also? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't included a specific link to that, as reading around the site a bit (getting caught in a "Wiki-black hole") I've come across so many different occasions. I have however added a link to Match fixing in a new See also section, which I think works better. Harrias talk 21:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers; the article was in good shape then, and has since got better with some excellent stylistic polishing. I think the article meets the FA criteria. George Orwell, who was famously faddy about double negatives, might have boggled at "not dissimilar" but I think it's OK. No other drafting points this time round and I am happy to support its promotion. Tim riley talk 23:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words Tim; the double negative has been removed now through other copy-edit work. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and that he thought there would be repercussions if they went ahead [with the plan] - bracketed bit can be dropped without losing meaning
Rose defended his actions, claiming that he "had no alternative", - be good if dequoted, such as "Rose defended his actions, claiming that he had no other option,"

otherwise a good read and fulfilling FA criteria. Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber:, both suggestions have now been made, thanks for having a look. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The intro you've written here sounds better than lead section. The article is about an incident, but the lead starts directly with details without introducing the incident.
    @AhmadLX: I've reworked the lead a little bit, how is it now? Harrias talk 11:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are so many quotes, 20 I could count. Many of them, like "improper", "wholly indefensible", "had no alternative", "support the team whatever their decision", are unnecessary and can be described without quotes.
    Trimmed. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section discusses change of laws of the game after this incident and other similar incidents. They are important but are absent from the lead, which should be brief representation of all important details of the article.
    Added the law change at the moment, but I will probably rewrite the lead completely. I just need to reset my head on it at the moment, as I'm too zoned-in on what's there right now. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not dissimilar" suggests that the two incidents weren't very similar either. But the details show they were very similar. AhmadLX (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Last point has been addressed by other copy-editing, I'm looking to address the rest. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead seems good to me now, other points addressed; Support. AhmadLX (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro: I'm recusing as coordinator as I can't resist this one and I've been promising to look at it for ages. I've copy-edited but as usual feel free to revert anything. Just a few points to consider, none of them too crucial. Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm very uncomfortable using Cricket Country as a source. It will pass RS comfortably enough but I'm not sure it's high quality enough for FA; the author of that article also has an unfortunate habit of basing his writing on wikipedia articles or match reports from other sources. I suspect most of what he writes is available elsewhere, and it may be better sticking to more established sources.
    I assume that it was just inferred from the scorecard, given that it isn't that hard to work out. That said, I was uncomfortable basing part of the match report on the scorecard alone. I've added the scorecard as a supporting reference alongside Cricket Country, how do you feel about that? Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty, I think you would be perfectly justified in just using the scorecard. That's all Cricket Country has done. I'd still prefer it removed altogether and just using the scorecard as I don't consider it a high enough quality source. Especially as it's just based on the scorecard. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, removed. Harrias talk 11:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm not sure we can really make a link between this and the underarm incident. I realise that Martin Williamson makes the same link in his article, but I don't think the two events are really comparable. If you wanted similar incidents, there were a few incidents in the 1930 Championship where Yorkshire similarly bent the rules, led astray by Bev Lyon... but without an article making this link explicit, I don't think we can do it without a bit of OR.
    Honestly, I disagree. As I draw upon in the article, both Arlott and Frith actively discuss a hope that this incident would be the end of captains putting winning ahead of the spirit of the game, and it is (to me) a pretty clear parallel. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Between you and Ian, I seem to be horribly outnumbered here. The sources agree, so it's fine to keep in. I just think that it's a real stretch to connect them as Martin Williamson does. It's a shame there's nothing that connects some of these unsporting incidents a little more directly. There's probably something out there somewhere, but I don't know of anything. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with a few points above: an image or two would be nice. Maybe one of the ground? But I doubt we could really justify using an non free images as there isn't really one person with whom this is associated.
    I agree that we can't use a non-free image. I would ideally like one of Brian Rose; I'm in the process of sounding out a couple of possible sources, but we'll see what comes of that. I'm not against a picture of the ground, but the oldest image we have is from 2006, which is not going to reflect the look of the ground in 1979 particularly well. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be OK. Presumably the pavilion is the same? Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, we could maybe expand the lead slightly; and perhaps the quotes could be trimmed as we don't really need them all.
    Trimmed some quotes out, still need to work on the lead properly. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does The Cricketer have any opinion on this? We quote from it a little, but I wonder if it passes judgement at all?
    Added a little. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it extraordinary that more people haven't written about this, given that some of the participants in the game aren't exactly shy in expressing opinions. But I've looked, and there's nothing. Other than the issues noted here, the sourcing is otherwise impeccable.
    I did find a bit more in Roebuck's autobiography actually, though it contradicted some of what I already had. I've incorporated this, and hopefully addressed the contradiction suitably? Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why am I not surprised that he tried to claim the credit for the idea? But that's perfect. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source formatting is absolutely fine Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once these little points have been looked at, I'm more than happy to support. When I've a little more time, I'll do a spot check of sources too. Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Sarastro1: Thanks for taking a look. Quick question for you; both ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive list Holder as bowling a maiden over, but there is a no-ball listed. My understanding is that a no-ball negates it from being a maiden? Clearly I have to follow the sources irrespective, but it strikes me as odd? (Maybe it was a more recent change that extras count against the bowler in this way?) Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't remember when exactly the rule changed, but no balls and wides weren't added to the runs conceded by a bowler until after this, some time in the 80s I think. It meant that you could bowl a maiden over with wides and no balls in it. Ping me when you've finished with the lead. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarastro1: Interesting stuff, every day is a school day! I've rewritten the lead slightly to add a bit more in, and hopefully address things in a better manner. Harrias talk 11:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ian -- Like Sarastro, I just have to recuse as coord, good thing there's three of us! At this stage I've looked through the article once without copyediting, and it read quite well, but I'll go through again as soon as I can and ce where I think it'll help.

  • My first point though is that I have a different perspective to my friend and colleague Sarastro re. the underarm incident -- perhaps it's because I'm an Aussie but even before I finished the lead I was comparing the two, and wondering if and when it'd be mentioned. I haven't looked at the referencing yet but my feeling is that if it can be reliably sourced then it's fair to put it in. Anyway I'll go through the article in detail when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know when I'm beaten! Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walked through again now, copyediting as I went -- I eliminated the "improper" quote mentioned above, and "not dissimilar", and of course am happy to discuss my edits if any concerns. I didn't find the article too quote-heavy, the main thing for me is that those used are attributed in-line, which I believe they are.
  • Sourcing-wise, I think in general I'll be happy to defer to Sarastro and others more expert than I re. cricket articles. I did spotcheck the two citations related to the underarm incident, and the first at least seems to buttress my contention that it's reasonable to mention it here (assuming Williamson is considered a reliable source naturally) as he discusses both in the one article.
  • Summarising, I'll park things here for now and try to return if the prose changes in response to other reviewers' suggestions, but overall it still looks pretty good to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Just reviewing for readiness here—are there any further remarks from you or do you plan to revisit? --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Andy -- in part I was waiting to see if we got consensus about a new name for the article but I think that may have petered out; I'll give it the once over again now that a few other reviewers have had their say and see where we come out... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I know how tough it is on a nominator when the changes you make on one reviewer's advice are disagreeable to another reviewer but unfortunately that's the case here. I found the original lead quite adequate, setting the scene in the first sentence or two and then telling us the controversy, rather than jumping right in as we do now. Further, I notice the sentence To avoid suffering a heavy defeat that could eliminate them, Rose worked out... has been changed to the passive it was worked out. We also have In contrast, Viv Richards, Joel Garner and Ian Botham were all very vocal in their support ... -- unless the cited source highlights the situation, I would call In contrast editorialising. I'm happy to see some quote fragments paraphrased, but apart from that I'm afraid it looks like one step forward and two steps back since I last read the article. Now I could have a go at tweaking the last-mentioned points but I think we need to find consensus re. the lead first (let alone the article title, if that is still under consideration). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Any chance you could take a look at Ian Rose's comments and see if we can find a middle ground? It seems silly for me to be too reactionary, given that you hold pretty opposing points, and without some compromise down the middle, I'm unlikely to please you both. Harrias talk 10:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I respectfully disagree with Ian regarding the first point. He sees it subjectively; he knows the detail already and as such sees first para as unnecessary stuff. Casual reader, however, would come to the article knowing little in advance. Article title is not descriptive, so the reader would expect to know the topic from intro sentence. From original version of the lead, it is unclear what the article is about, unless you are halfway through the lead. To me, the current version of the lead appears to be logical summary of the article: introduction & importance is established in the first para, detail in the second, aftermath in the third. I have no problem with other points he mentions. Thank you. AhmadLX (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and Laser brain: Any advice on how I can proceed? Harrias talk 10:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've recused coord duties here, I'm speaking purely as a reviewer. First of all, I'm afraid Ahmad has assumed wrongly -- I'd never heard of this incident before reading the article and hence, rather than seeing it subjectively, I'm the casual reader of which they speak, which is precisely why I believe the original lead that set the scene and then described the controversy was the better one. As to how to proceed, perhaps we could ask the other reviewers to weigh in re. the lead's form. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Seems we are stuck here. Okay then, you can restore original lead if you want. I won't change my support. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Ahmad, that's very gracious -- Harrias, did you want to act on this re. the lead? I'm happy to tweak those points in the main body that I highlighted on 19 March... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. Work has been a nightmare this week, but I'll take a look at this later today. I am still alive! Harrias talk 11:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Okay, I've reverted the lead back to more or less its original form. I've tinkered a little bit, which goes only with the "Rose worked out..." to "it was worked out" switch. Basically, reading around the sources a bit more, I realised that it wasn't clear that it was Rose who came up with the plan, so I had to soften the language slightly. I removed "In contrast" as it was superfluous anyway. Harrias talk 20:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Any follow-up comments on the latest revisions? --Laser brain (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for the ping Andy -- I've tweaked a little but I believe my comments have been dealt with so ready to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 213.205.240.200

This article is all about an incident, so IMO the title should reflect that; something like Worcestershire v Somerset Incident or Worcestershire v Somerset Cricket Incident or ODI Declaration Incident Somerset? Somerset declaration controversy sounds cool ;)AhmadLX (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If further disambiguation is considered necessary (I'm not convinced that it is) then I would suggest Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979 Benson & Hedges Cup. I am personally not a fan of titles such as "xxx controversy", but I'm generally happy to follow any consensus. Harrias talk 18:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Ref 8 shows a subscription template, but the Cricketer article is available from the link. The same applies to ref 17.
  • Ref 14 supports the statement: "The same thing happened in Watford, where Glamorgan and the Minor Counties were due to play." A minor issue is that play did actually start at Watford, where four balls were bowled, whereas "The same thing happened" implies that rain prevented any play at all. More to the point, however, is the irrelevance of the statement. Unless I'm missing something, what happened at Watford had no bearing on the Worcs v Somerset game, and the detail appears to be mere padding.
    • Had that game gone ahead with a result, Somerset would have had a better idea of what result they would need. It's tangential, but the suggestion across the sources is that the fact that Glamorgan could secure a big win against the Minor Counties was on the players' minds. In terms of it being "The same thing"; both games had no play on 23 May, the four balls bowled were on the second day, but I agree that the source provided does not support this; I will find an alternative. Harrias talk 11:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 22: The Daily Mail is not considered to be a high quality, reliable source.

Spotchecking reveals no issues. With the exception of the DM the sources meet the standards criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks; fixed two, need to check the other. Harrias talk 11:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2019&oldid=892033660"