Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Gilligan/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arthur Gilligan[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA and I am hoping to take it to FAC. Gilligan was an England cricket captain in the 1920s, at the same time that he was an active fascist. No, really! Any prose comments would be appreciated. Also, how does it read for non-cricketers and is there the correct balance between cricket figures and stats, and the "human element"?

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I can help with some grammar nitpicks and some non-Cricket perspective. I'm about a third of the way through, overall very good just a few small points (not in order, sorry!):
  • Check for some places where you can replace "Gilligan" with "he", some suggestions: "When his playing career ended, Gilligan held several important positions", "Gilligan established a sporting reputation in athletics and cricket.", & "In 1914, Gilligan came top of the school batting and bowling averages.[4] But Gilligan, while displaying an aptitude for cricket, was not well-known outside of the school team."
  • Got some of these, and will keep an eye out for others. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The South African government did not want D'Oliviera in the England team on the grounds of his colour." Which colour was he?
  • While this may seem delicately phrased, it is probably the best way to write it. D'Oliviera was what was known by the apartheid government as a "Cape Coloured". I think the context makes it clear enough without having to categorise his race, but you may have a better way to phrase this as a non-cricketer, who probably doesn't know the story. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " His batting made a bigger initial impression when, batting at number eleven in the order," Is there a good way around the "batting ... batting" here?
  • "After briefly playing County Cricket for Surrey, he moved to Sussex in 1920. After a slow start to his county career" Minor issue, but you start consecutive sentences with "after" here.
  • "A few day later, Gilligan won his blue by appearing in the University Match against Oxford." If might be nice to have a parenthetical or a note explaining what a "blue" is here.
  • Are there any more details about his wartime service that could be added?
  • "Gilligan left Cambridge and joined a General Produce Merchants in London, called Gilbert Kimpton & Co." Do you know what his role there was?
  • You might want to link his brothers in the "Early life" section.
  • They are both linked and explained in the Personal life section, which is probably the better place for them. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michael Marshall names Harry Howell, a fast bowler, as the person responsible for the injury." I think you could end the sentence after "responsible".
  • No problem, I'll take another look later, Internet is spotty at the moment. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were a few places that you had commas where I didn't think they were necessary: " broadcasting in Australia on the 1932–33 Ashes series, and covering subsequent visits of MCC teams to Australia for the Australian Broadcasting Commission.", "those regarded as representing the best players in a region or group (such as professional cricketers), or one involving national sides", " He took 163 wickets at 17.50 and scored 1,183 runs at an average of 21.12, to complete the double of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets in a season for the only time in his career", "he had 103 wickets at 19.36,[8] and 864 runs at 21.07.", & " he scored 231 runs at a batting average of 17.76,[7] and took 35 wickets at 31.57.".
  • Fixed all but the second one, where I think it may be needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a few places I thought you could use one (commas added here): "His cricket was less effective in following years, and he played less frequently.", "He died in 1976, aged 81.", & "Gilligan was appointed vice-captain to Frank Mann, in preference to Percy Fender who was much admired as a captain but not popular with the cricket authorities.". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the first, but the second is already as written here. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, finished my read-through, back again with a few more comments:
  • Double check consistency of capitalization for "Communism".
  • "he did not score a fifty and averaged 7.22 with the bat,[7] and took four wickets." Is the comma necessary here?
  • "some commentators hoped that the tour would help to ease tension.[39] It was hoped Gilligan's influence and popularity would further assist" There's some repetition of "hoped" here.
  • "It provoked a minor controversy when he suggested Jack Hobbs assumed the captaincy" Is "assumed" correct here?
  • My grammar has fallen apart here. Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following heavy losses to Australia in two Test series immediately following the war, the England selectors needed to appoint a new captain." Minor issue, but I'd suggest "England's selectors" here.
  • That would not quite sound correct in UK English, and "the England selectors" is a fairly standard phrase. Usually followed by "are [insert rude word of your choice]". Sarastro1 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australia won the first two Tests, and Herbie Collins, the Australian captain, had established himself as the superior tactician." Do you need the "had" here?
  • Ok, looks good, not a whole lot I can find to complain about. I'll make some small copyedits, feel free to revert if need be. Let me know when this is at FAC and I'll plan on reviewing. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments up to the halfway point. I am pretty busy this weekend and will only be online intermittently, so the rest will probably have to wait until Sunday night or Monday.

Lead
  • I think the first para should mention the kind of cricketer he was (e.g. fast bowler and hard-hitting lower-order batsman – or some such)
  • "his brother Harold also captained England" - not really lead material (especially given the nature of the "England" that Harold captained)
  • Also in the lead, it might be better to summarise the Fascist stuff separately, rather than in the middle of a paragraph mainly about his cricket feats.
  • Some readers may wonder how an injury he sustained while batting messed up his bowling.
  • Done these. I moved the fascist stuff to the start of the final paragraph which summarises his "achievements" for want of a better word. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • Bit clumsy, this: "He was the second of three sons, all of whom played first-class cricket, to Willie Austin Gilligan and Alice Eliza Kimpton, who also had a daughter".
  • At present it reads as though he played club cricket in Sussex as a child. Suggested slight rephrasing: "...Gilligan followed Sussex County Cricket Club as a child, and later played club cricket there".
  • Technically, he did, but it's one of those whimsical stories which has no real place here, so followed your phrasing. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While he displayed an aptitude for cricket, Gilligan was not well-known outside of the school team" - this sentence seems fairly pointless, could easily be ditched without effect.
Cricket at Cambridge
  • The first paragraph begins "Following the war..." but there is no year given for the events recorded until the last sentence. You should specify the year earlier
  • I'm a bit confused about the timing of his decision to transfer to Sussex: "...his decision to register with Sussex after the previous season" needs clarifying
  • Something missing: "...In all first-class cricket, he ???? 624 runs at an average of 17.33 and took 81 wickets at 23.55".
Sussex cricketer
  • "Having married just before the season..." Why is this relevant to his cricket in 1921?
  • It isn't, and I can't remember any particular reason for putting it there. Gone now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Private note: how can taking just 9 more wickets at an even higher cost than in 1920 be considered "a distinct advance"? I detectWisden's usual penetrating analysis, which I encountered more than once in my Larwood researches)
  • (To digress, my reading on this is that Wisden at the time was very sniffy about statistics. I've managed to collect several older copies and reprints of Wisden, and the 1920s is full of comments which simply disregard the statistics in favour of commenting on how they performed. I've no particular problem with that, as many cricketers filled their boots against the (very) weak counties who propped up the table at the time. One brief example from a similar period: Wilfred Rhodes regularly came top of the Yorkshire bowling averages with astonishing figures, but Wisden usually has a comment that he got most of his wickets in very favourable conditions or against the weak counties, and Macaulay and Kilner usually carried the attack against their main rivals. And the scorecards more-or-less back it up. Short version: I tend to believe Wisden in this period when it disregards stats.)
  • Was it Mann or Gilligan who was preferred to Fender by the MCC establishment?
  • "and took nine wickets at 22.37, although he did not exceed three wickets in any of the four innings in which he bowled." I'm not sure that the not exceeding three wickets is very important, but I do think the summary of his Test match performances should follow rather than precede the report that he played in them.
  • Capitalised "County Cricket"?
  • "Personally..." is redundant
England captain
  • "In the event, the selectors appointed Gilligan as captain for the 1924 series against South Africa, in an attempt to assess his quality as a player." This doesn't make sense: why would they make him captain in order to assess his quality as a player?
  • Not quite as daft as it sounds, but requires a bit of background. They were in a desperate search for a captain, and were thrashing around for anyone who was not Fender. I suspect Mann was the favoured choice, but could not cut it as a player. And although the captain had to be amateur, he also had to be worth his place. Or at least not to be an embarrassment. So they had a look at Gilligan to see if he was up to scratch, but made him captain as well as that was the role they were really looking at. I've reworded a little, but could probably add more of this background if you think it needs it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Again, he was preferred to Percy Fender" That is already clear (you have said that Fender was under consideration, and that Gilligan was appointed.
  • "Both players missed the tour which substantially weakened the bowling strength of the team." Needs re-punctuating, to avoid ambiguity.
  • Reworded the whole sentence, hopefully better. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will be back with more. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the second half:

Tour of Australia - on the field
  • "Gibson notes... " twice in quick succession. In the second case he appears to make a judgement rather than a "note"
  • In my view the two final sentences, which summarise Gilligan's entire Test career, are rather misplaced here. They could, for example, be moved to the beginning of the "Remaining cricket career" section.
  • Moved them to the end of his career with his first-class figures.
Political concerns
  • "according to historian Andrew Moore": Tim riley used to regular;y chastise me for committing the tabloidism/Americanism of using a person's description as an adjective without the definite article. Thus, according to the Law of Tim, it should be "the historian Andrew Moore". Having noted how the more literary writers formulate this sort of thing, I am firmly on Tim's side with regard to this.
  • On what evidence is it asserted that the British Fascist movement was "popular" in the 1920s? I'm sure it did not enjoy mass support; I wonder how many people even knew it existed?
  • The article by Moore explicity says this; I've reworded to show that was not for long. Apparently, the Australian secret service believed the membership reached 100,000 in Britain, although this was apparently a considerable exaggeration. As I've no great knowledge, I have to go with the source on this one. To be honest, I'd never heard of them before encountering Gilligan's story. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remaining cricket career
  • Not the best of prose styles to have almost-successive sentences beginning respectively: "Appearing in fewer games..." and "Appearing in more games..."
  • Grammar needs attention: "That season, Gilligan also joined the panel of England Test selectors, which caused him to miss some cricket for Sussex, but was no longer considered for a place in the England team". There's a problem around with the "but". I suggest the sentence is recast along the lines: "That season, although no longer considered for a place in the England team himself, Gilligan joined the panel of Test selectors, and as a consequence missed some cricket for Sussex".
  • It should be made clear from the outset that the 1926-27 MCC team to India was not a representative side and did not play any Tests.
  • "withdrew fro the tour owing to illness" (I should have fixed this typo)
Style and technique
  • "Many of his centuries..." rather implies a higher career total than 12
  • "excelled" repeated in successive (almost) lines
  • Maybe Sussex's "greatness" deserves a [sic]? Did they win anything? (see also "successful years" later in the section)
  • No, they didn't, although they came close many times. Perhaps greatness is over-egging it, so I've just gone for "relative success", which is a bit wishy-washy but I think better. I'm not sure about [sic], as it implies some sort of editorial judgement. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "put in a lot of work" is a bit informal & a slightly stale expression
  • "...said of him: 'With him...'" Sounds awkward
Personal life
  • Harold's succession to the captaincy and leadership of the MCC tour to New Zealand have already been mentioned.
  • "...for whom he was later made an Honorary Life Member" - I think one is a member "of" a club, not "for". And a club is a "which" rather than a "whom".
  • "According to D'Oliviera's biographer Peter Oborne, the selectors were advised by former Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home to support the wish of John Vorster, the South African Prime Minister to omit D'Oliviera". This opinion is attributed to Oborne, but cited to an article by Vic Marks. I have Oborne's book (though I can't lay my hands on it at this moment) and my distinct memory is that Home did not advise the selectors to "support the wish of John Vorster" to omit D'Oliviera. What he did was equally egregious: he advised the selectors not to press the matter with Vorster, because D'Oliviera might lose form and not deserve selection, in which case the whole business would fade away. He wished, he wished... Perhaps, while I hunt up the book (it could be anywhere) you could check this out? On the other hand, I'm far from convinced that whatever Sir Alec did or didn't advise has much relevance in an article about Gilligan, and it may be that the best solution is to leave this sentence out altogether. However, if it remains in, let's be sure to get it right.
  • OK, looking at this, and your notes on your talk page, I agree that AD-H can come out here. I've clarified Oborne's opinion of Gilligan, and I think it all reads fine without any mention of Vorster or Douglas-Home. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That concludes my comments. Nice tidy job, well done as usual. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Arthur_Gilligan/archive1&oldid=522699666"