Talk:Second Test, 1948 Ashes series/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The dates of the Test in the lead do not match the section headers.
   • What's a "poisoned toe"?
     • I figured it was something like that but have never heard that phrase before…
   • In the sentence Australian retained the same XI from the First Test at Trent Bridge, should that be Australia rather than Australian?
   • Is debutant a cricket term? Is there a link?
   • In the sentence beginning The Australian captain managed only three runs…, in what sense is the word as being used: because or while?
   • Some explanation for (and a link, if possible) are needed for lbw in the sentence beginning Hassett was dropped three times before Yardley….
   • In section "June 12: Day Three", the fact that it was Bradman's last Test at Lord's/the home of cricket is mentioned twice. Probably don't need that twice, unless there's some subtle cricket-related distinction that I'm not understanding.
   • What does before appealing unsuccessfully against the light mean?
   • It might be nice to link some of the cricket terminology in the photo captions.
   • There are several one or two sentence paragraphs throughout that might easily be combined, like in section "June 10: Day One", for example.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The prose is neutral in tone, but the images are skewed in the direction of Australia. Even the one photo of the player for England has an Aussie in it, too. Any chance of some more photos of players for England?

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Other than the issues above, I think the article's in great shape. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Attended to all of these, except the imbalance in photos. Australian law requires 50 years for PD, while English law is 70 years after the photographer dies, which is why the photos of Englishmen are so sparse, as these events occurred 60 years ago. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that was what was going on with the photos; I thought it more amusing than anything else. My apologies for the delayed reassessment. I minimized my GA reviewing window and then proceeded to forget all about it... — Bellhalla (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)