Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Craig Kieswetter/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2017 [1].

Craig Kieswetter[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Kieswetter was one of those England cricketers who bounced in and out of the team. He had a good run in one-day cricket early in his career, and was man of the match in the final when England won the World Twenty20, the first one-day trophy won by the team. He later lost his England place to one of his Somerset team-mates. At domestic level, he was one of Somerset's star players until he was struck in the eye by the ball, ending his career prematurely.

This article underwent a GA review by Sturmvogel 66, who helped to reduce the amount of jargon used, or at least reminded me to explain it or wikilink it. Relentlessly very kindly copy-edited the article, both improving the quality of the prose, and identifying a number of areas where the referencing fell short. Crisco 1492 took a quick look at the images. The last FAC stalled a bit, but I think I have addressed all the points raised at that nomination by Dweller, and have returned for another shot. Since the last review, Kieswetter has started a career as a professional golfer, and I have added some information about that, though there is little to say so far. Harrias talk 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Recusing as coordinator on this one. A few thoughts on the lead (which I copyedited; please revert anything you don't like) to begin with, more later. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "after qualifying for the England cricket team": Do we need to say something more about this? The general reader might struggle to understand this, but I'm not sure the lead is the place to spell it out.
  • Per the final point here as well, I've cut this from the opening paragraph. The second paragraph spells it out a bit more, and it isn't needed here too. Harrias talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a lack of progression": Similar issue here. I think the general reader will be lost by this. Maybe lack of opportunity?
  • In the lead, we repeat the information in the first paragraph later on in the lead. I think we could trim that first paragraph right back to a description of his role and stats. The rest is duplicated later. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, I've got into a bad habit of using the opening paragraph of the lead as a "mini-lead", in which I summarise the rest of the lead. I've cut a couple of bits out, how does it seem now? Harrias talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note to say that I haven't forgotten this, and hope to get back to it this weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he scored a relatively modest 606 first-class runs at an average of 31.89": If we are going to talk about relative success, we should be citing something which compares him, such as the Somerset averages. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed and added a source for this. Harrias talk 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He played all ten matches for the Warriors, scoring 199 runs at an average of 22.11, including two half-centuries.": Apparently uncited at the end of a paragraph. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the playing style section, there look to be one or two terms that would benefit from linking, such as off side and square.
  • I also wonder do we need a touch more on his wicketkeeping. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I recall him being a pretty terrible keeper. Were there any technical discussion of his keeping about why he was not the best?
  • This is an interesting one, because the little bits I've found suggest he was the best gloveman out of the list below! Want to find more on this before I put anything in though. Harrias talk 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sarastro1: I've looked around this a bit more, and there is really very little written. I wonder if it might be worth mentioning the "modern wicket-keeper", who is a batsman first and a wicket-keeper second; possibly referencing Gilchrist as the man who really solidified this change in attitude? Therefore it was primarily batting talent that decided his place, not keeping ability. I just don't know if that is too much to go into for an article about one person. (That isn't Gilchrist.) Harrias talk 15:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be wary of too much Gilchrist, unless it was an article in which it discusses how he changed the role of wicketkeeping. I've certainly read something like that before, but I'll be damned if I can remember where! Ideally, it would mention Kieswetter, but if it's just on the role of the keeper, that would be fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything in particular about his batting technique, especially if he had problems against the moving ball?
    • @Sarastro1: I've added a bit more about his batting technique and a little about his keeping, though there is little specificity, more a comparison between him and Buttler/Bairstow, which might link to the point below slightly. Let me know what you think. Harrias talk 10:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the ODI keeper tangle between him, Buttler, Bairstow and Prior, is there anything else? The article looks a little light as it took quite a while to settle.
    • What I added above covered this a little, but I'm not sure how much more should be added. Articles and articles and articles were written about it, but ultimately, they all just rehashed the same things over and over, which is mostly included in the discussion about his technique above. It doesn't seem appropriate to put much about the other players technique in here, so the only avenue to add much more would seem to be talk about Kieswetter playing (or, rather, not playing) Test cricket? Harrias talk 15:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than the quotes we already have, are there any comments from colleagues/coaches about him or his effectiveness? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find a great deal online for this. I'll have a look through some of the year books against for this point when I return from holiday. Harrias talk 15:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a little, but most of the rest of what I can find it pretty bland stuff. Harrias talk 14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking OK. I'll be happy to support once these issues have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added a couple of simple ones; the Somerset year book will probably be the best thing for comparison, so I'll check that at home. Will look into the latter points, which require more research. Harrias talk 09:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is a very well put together summary of Kieswetter's career. Just a couple of minor nitpicks below which don't affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still wonder about "relatively modest"; the source is good, but I still think we need to say relative to what; his previous form? The form of his teammates?
  • "worked on his batting, which had been described by Steve James as a "frenzy at the crease, as manic as a teenager on a night out"" Would this be better as "working on his batting technique"? Otherwise I'm not quite sure it makes sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Very little at issue here. The sources apppear to be of appropriate authority and reliablility for a cricketer biography. The only nit I can find to pick is that refs 15 and 59 seem to be lacking publisher details.

Otherwise all well. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brianboulton. Not sure how I managed to omit those details; added in now. Harrias talk 15:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, though neither was actually dead. Harrias talk 14:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both where dead when I checked them, odd. Oh well... (t) Josve05a (c) 14:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I will be on a family holiday from now until 16 October. I may be able to pop and do bits and bobs, but it isn't going to be my priority. Hopefully this won't be a problem, but I can understand if things need to move on. Harrias talk 10:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments on prose by Finetooth[edit]

I have never played cricket and know only a little about it, but I can offer a few suggestions about prose and MOS issues. The prose generally flows nicely, and the tale is interesting.
General
  • Concise alt text would be nice.
  • Citation 94 has a dead URL.
    • Note Need to find a new source for this. Harrias talk 19:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll check back later. Finetooth (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found an archived version of the article, so have linked to that. Harrias talk 13:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noted some duplicate links below, but there are others.
Lead
  • ¶2 "He qualified to play county cricket through his Scottish mother,..." – Better might be "Through his Scottish mother, he qualified to play county cricket,...".
Not only does this inadvertently suggest playing through as in golf, it's not clear here in the lead what about his mother made him qualified. Finetooth (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, odd, I thought I'd changed this one. Done now as suggested. Harrias talk 21:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and career
  • ¶2 "Not out" and "Glamorgan" are both linked twice in this paragraph.
  • ¶3 "after two wickets had been lost in an over" – Link over?
  • ¶4 "Warwickshire" is linked twice in this paragraph.
International selection
  • ¶3 "that went for four on first ball he faced" – Missing word, "the", before "first ball"?
  • ¶3 "he was then caught at first-slip" – Link first-slip?
  • ¶3 Bangladesh is linked twice in this paragraph.
Dropped and recalled by England
  • Jos Buttler is linked twice in this section.
  • ¶3 "in English conditions" – I assume this means something like "local rules", but I'm not sure. Would linking to something be helpful here?
    • Note This refers to the same thing as is mentioned later in "Playing style", when I wrote that "but was less effective in England, where the ball tended to change direction more." I might put a note in to clarify this on the first mention here. Harrias talk 19:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying on first mention would be good. Finetooth (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note in about this. Harrias talk 13:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Later domestic career
  • ¶1 "a season in which Somerset struggled against relegation" – Link relegation?
Injury and retirement from cricket
  • ¶1 "which went through the gap between the grille and the visor on Kieswetter's helmet and struck him in the face" – Does this sort of accident happen often?
    • Note Not at all, although there have been a few high profile incidents in recent years, that have eventually led to helmets being redesigned. It's worth me checking whether articles about that specifically cite the Kieswetter case. Harrias talk 19:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll check back later. Finetooth (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit more on this at the end of the section. Harrias talk 14:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Interesting addition. Finetooth (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Playing style
  • ¶1 Note c: "A front-foot" technique is one in which a criketer plays the majority of their shots with their weight forward, over the front foot." – Singlar "a" mismatched with plural "their". Suggestion: "A "front-foot" technique is one in which a criketer plays the majority of his shots with his weight forward, over the front foot."
Interesting. Thanks for the link to the "singular they" article, which I had never encountered before. The language keeps changing. Finetooth (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶1 "flat subcontinental pitches" – Link pitch?
  • ¶1 "subcontinental" – Does that mean India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka only?
  • ¶2 "a better wicket-keeper than two of his rivals for an England" – Is "for an England" correct, or is something missing?
Golf career
  • ¶1 "After his retirement from cricket, Kieswetter's father suggested that he take a break and play some golf." – Modifier problem. Suggestion: "After Kieswetter retired from cricket, his father suggested..."
  • @Finetooth: Thanks for your comments; is your username nominative determinism? All have been done as suggested with the exception of those I have put notes by above, which are either waiting for me to action something, or querying your comment. Harrias talk 19:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Nominative determinism" is a concept I had never considered, but yes, my user name seems to be an example of exactly that. I've struck most of my comments, but a few remain. Finetooth (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • however he continued to experience However is frowned upon at FAC and i'm starting to agree that it's over-used; a "but" would be perfectly sufficient here
  • and, in June 2015—aged 27, Use the same punctuation to open and close the subordinate clause; perhaps lose the comma after "and" for clarity
  • between the ages of 13 to 18 Ranges should be from X to Y, or between X and Y; not between X to Y.
  • The link on 2008 (to 2008 English cricket season) is arguably an Easter egg, and for reasons I don't fully understand some people have devoted inordinate amounts of time to arguing about linking dates with the result that we generally shouldn't do it.
  • "Bangladesh Cricket Board XI" Why the quotes?
  • In the next match, two days later, Kieswetter was dropped by Mushfiqur Rahim off a thick edge that went for four on the first ball he faced; he was then caught at first-slip off a similar thick edge to first-slip on the next delivery Is that even in English because I have no idea what it means! ;)
    I don't know what you mean! No, I can see that sentence has got very jargon heavy, even though it is all linked. On re-reading, I think it probably goes into far more detail than is needed; would you agree that it might be better just cut right down? Harrias talk 13:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You could cut it down if you wanted but it still needs to make sense to those of us who don't follow cricket! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell: How is this: In the next match, two days later, Kieswetter misplayed his first ball and was lucky not to be dismissed; he was then caught at first-slip off a similar mishit on the next delivery. Harrias talk 20:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's much better in terms of prose, but is "lucky" from the source or is it editorialising? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell: Good point; in that case: In the next match, two days later, Kieswetter misplayed his first ball and was nearly dismissed; he was then caught at first-slip off a similar mishit on the next delivery. Harrias talk 22:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I think I know what first slip means, but I had to read the explanation in the linked article a couple of times before I got it. If it's really important, you might need to explain it in-line, and if it's not I'd suggest dropping that detail. And does "next delivery" mean the next ball bowled? Can you just say that? I'm being pedantic now really; your suggestion is much more accessible than the sentence as it was. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell: But, but, all my cool, cliquey cricket words! Fair point that where he was caught is probably irrelevant to an article like this. I've therefore changed the article to In the next match, two days later, Kieswetter misplayed his first ball and was nearly dismissed; he was then caught off a similar mishit from the next ball bowled. How's that? Harrias talk 16:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Howzat you mean? Look at me actually knowing enough about cricket to make a bad pun! ;) Yes, that's much better in that I actually know what it means! With that change, I'll support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, playing in an era that however could probably become a "nonetheless" with no loss of meaning (I seem to be the bloody "however" police today!)

I'm only picking nits really. What I know about cricket you could fit on, well, a cricket ball but this is the most polished and readable FAC I've read today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the review; I've fixed all as suggested except where noted above. Harrias talk 13:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comments – To help the coordinators out, I checked for disambiguation links and repeat wikilinks and found none. The script I used to highlight repeat links brought up a few hits, but they were all for links in the body that had been repeated from the lead, which is just fine. The only thing I noticed worth bringing up is that reference 6 had part of its title in all caps, which could stand to be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vensatry[edit]

  • "In early 2010, Kieswetter achieved his target" – This one sounds POVish
    • This is mentioned and cited in the body: "Kieswetter repeated his desire to play international cricket for England." (ref #22) Harrias talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a couple of months later he was the man of the match when England won the 2010 ICC World Twenty20." – In the final?
    • Yes, the sentences starts "During the final, ..." Harrias talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was initially some hope of a full recovery and he was named in a provisional England squad for the 2015 Cricket World Cup, but he continued to experience difficulties with his vision and in June 2015, aged 27, announced his retirement from professional cricket." – This one is breathless. I'dsuggest you to trim this down a bit.
  • "80 off just 66 balls." - ditto with "scoring an unbeaten 138 off just 131 balls against Warwickshire."
  • "Somerset's second team" – A clarification on "second team" might be helpful for non-experts.
  • "he made 69 not out off 58 deliveries and took a catch described as "world class" by Somerset's director of cricket, Brian Rose." – The catch or the innings as well?
    • Just the catch, hence why it says "took a catch described as "world class"". Harrias talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A few weeks later, he scored 106 runs against Durham to help his county avoid defeat" – Again, it might be worth clarifying that he helped his team draw the game as non-experts may not be aware what "avoid defeat" means in the given context.
  • "After England's drawn T20I series with Pakistan" – Which series are we talking about?
  • "in the first warm-up match on 23 February against the Bangladesh Cricket Board XI." – There's no mention of year/season anywhere before this one.
    • It follows on from the previous paragraph, talking about 2010. Harrias talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there's a huge leap between the two - perhaps add the year in this bit: "After England's drawn T20I series with Pakistan ..." —Vensatry (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These performances led to Kieswetter's selection for the first ODI against" – Apart from his career-best 143 were there any other knock?
    • Tweaked. Harrias talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Umm, this bit is unsourced. Further, the Cricinfo ref. (that supports the following bit) talks only about his 143 as far as the warm up games are concerned. —Vensatry (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point; I've had a look, changed the wording again, and added another reference, which better supports it. Harrias talk 12:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that CricketAarchive isn't accessible to non-subscribed users, you could replace a few ones (preferably by cricinfo) – add the "subscription required" label in such refs.
    • Added subscription tag, but per WP:PAYWALL there is no need to change them. Harrias talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two things – is CricketArchive more reliable than Cricinfo? If some sources are easily replaceable by better-quality (read reliable) ones, I'd go with them rather than the lesser-reliable (and non-accessible) ones. —Vensatry (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, CricketArchive is generally more reliable and comprehensive than Cricinfo, and is a little more stable at the moment. And going by your argument, we should not use books if a free source is available, and this is absolutely the wrong way to go about writing a FA; we use the best sources, free, non-free, online or offline. As long as they can be verified, which CricketArchive can be. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Frankly, this is the first time I'm hearing that CricketArchive is more reliable than Cricinfo (notwithstanding its comprehensiveness). CA's credibility has been questioned in FLCs in the past. And, I've never implied that we should do away with such sources if they are non-replaceable. —Vensatry (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source.
    • The Daily Mail has a multi-award winning sport writing team. It is not a reliable news source, but it is a top-notch sports source. Harrias talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he scored 164 runs, the highest innings of his first-class career" – "he scored 164 runs, the highest score in his first-class career"
    • No, the use of "innings" is preferential to repeating the words "scored" and "score" so close together. Harrias talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kieswetter remained England wicket-keeper for the T20I and ODI matches against India late in the season." – Can you link to the relevant tournament?
  • "Despite this, he was considered to be a better wicket-keeper than two of his rivals for England; Bairstow and Buttler." – Not sure the claim is verifiable by the source.
    • "doubts over the glovework at the highest level of the other two may bring Kieswetter back into consideration for the Tests against Sri Lanka next month." (From the source; doubts over the glovework of Buttler and Bairstow, but the selection of Kieswetter equates to saying that he was considered better at that. Harrias talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • By "highest-level", I presume the author means Test cricket. Second, the claim seems to indicate "form" rather than the "class". In any case, another source could be added as the claim looks a bit contentious. —Vensatry (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've clarified this a little in the article. Harrias talk 12:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • "glovework" sounds journalese. —Vensatry (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it is jargon, rather than journalese; I've linked the term to our glossary. Harrias talk 12:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both "one-day" and "List A".
    • Switched all to one-day. Harrias talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto with "balls" and "deliveries". Perhaps, clarify that both are one and the same in the first instance. —Vensatry (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Switched all to balls actually. Harrias talk 12:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Thanks, have responded to each point above. Harrias talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Meets the standards, IMO. Nice work! —Vensatry (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2017 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Craig_Kieswetter/archive2&oldid=1143876940"