Talk:Harry Lee (cricketer)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Lee (cricketer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 21:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC) I've done some light copy-editing rather than listing minor points here. Nothing too major but please revert anything you are not happy with or that I have made a mess of.

Comments

• "He ranked third amongst Middlesex batsmen in the County Championship": In terms of runs, average or luckiest men alive?

• I uhmmed and ahhed about this one: it is both runs and average, which is why I didn't specify: at that stage there wasn't really another way to rank the batsmen, so I decided against stating it clearly, but I can see why it might be needed. Do you reckon I should make it clear? Harrias ^talk 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Meh. I think it is worth specifying but not a big deal. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• "in which he was utilised heavily, being Middlesex's third most used bowler": Do we have a reason at all? (I suspect Wisden would say; I wonder if anyone has a copy of that year?)

• I have no idea, but User:Johnlp seems to have a decent Wisden stash, I'll try tapping him for information. Harrias ^talk 22:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Any idea of what drew him to South Africa?

• Unofficially: Are you kidding me, winter in England or summer in South Africa?! Officially: He was invited; would it be better to rephrase to: "Instead, he travelled to South Africa for the first of many winters playing and coaching in the country, accepting an invitation from the Wanderers Club in Johannesburg." (Or something similar). Harrias ^talk 22:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• That would work nicely and makes it less random. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• "He did not travel to South Africa in either of 1923–24 or 1924–25, a fact which he describes as "cause and effect" of his poor form in 1924 and 1925." Presumably this means he did not travel as a coach. I would not have thought his form had any affect on this, so it seems a strange statement. Harrias ^talk 22:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure how much to put; I didn't want to get into too much detail. He says "To some extent it was cause and effect, for I was immensely fit after a winter in the South African sunshine, and my damaged leg abhors idleness." (He goes on more about other injuries and his footwork too! Should I try and work a little bit more of this in? Harrias ^talk 22:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not too sure he is making much sense however much detail you go into!! So did he choose to go or was he not asked that year owing to his form? Or is he being deliberately vague? If so, leave it as it is as it isn't a big deal. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gents v Players: Is it worth mentioning that the Oval match was not as prestigious as the Lord's one? Probably too much, I suppose. And it may be better to say that the Players side were professionals instead of linking "Players" to the amateur article.

• Yeah: I think the lack of a decent page to link to for the Players is a glaring omission in Wikipedia that I keep noticing and do nothing about! Harrias ^talk 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• I had a go at this but did not mention about the lesser status of the Oval game. That one is entirely up to you. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• "helped to show that his talent remained": Not too sure a scorecard can tell us this!

• True! Would a switch to something a bit more neutral like "helped to show that he could still bat at the required level", or cut it completely? Harrias ^talk 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think cut it completely or rephrase as "although he was successful..." --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• It may be worth paraphrasing some of the Swanton and Altham quote to make it explicit that Lord's at the time was pretty rubbish for batsmen as it may not be clear to the uninitiated from the quote.

• How about: H. S. Altham and E. W. Swanton suggested that figures alone do show his true worth, as at the time the Lord's pitch did not favour batsmen, and had he played his career on "some other ground where the pitch was a batsman's paradise, his figures would have borne a truer relation to his value." Harrias ^talk 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks good. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• In an ideal world, there would be a few more sources and less use of Lee's own writing, but to be realistic, there is not going to be much else and I think we can trust the details he gives. Nothing about his career or ability comes from his own work, so I think it's fine. It may be worth hunting further for information if you plan to take this further, for example newspaper obituaries (there is nothing in the Times that I can see) or official county histories.

• I tried to avoid using his autobio for anything other than facts about his life: opinion and scores I either back up with other sources, or for the article have tried to use different sources: if there is anything contentious from his autobio, let me know; I agree I may have to find some more sources before an FAC, but it has proved tricky! Harrias ^talk 07:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, it all looks very reliable. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 27 is with Ancestry, which I always assumed was a big no-no. All other references check out fine. Cricinfo seems to have altered slightly so the reference to that site is a redirect which ought to be changed. Everything else checks out for links and dab links.

• Quick reply to this one, I'll respond to the rest when I have more time. I'd agree that Ancestry is a big no-no; but this is purely the National Archives, hosted by Ancestry: not a user published family tree or anything of the kind. For some reason it doesn't seem to be available directly through the National Archives like the rest below. Harrias ^talk 07:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Watch this one if it does go to FAC though. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll put this on hold for these very minor issues but could probably pass it now. Very nice job and looks like it may be worth a punt at FAC if a few more sources could be found. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I've now responded to all of your issues, or at least your immediate ones. A few have been noted and I'll work on before a potential FAC. With regards to the Ancestry reference, when you search for WO 364 on the National Archives website, you get this page here. If you look at the third paragraph of the the "Scope and content" section, it states: "Electronic images of these records can be searched online through our partner website." That partner website is ancestry.co.uk. I'm certainly happy that this makes it a reliable source for this document. Others may disagree, but I think it's a pretty good argument.

I'm seriously considering taking the article to WikiProject Military history's A-class review as a next step, for two key reasons. The first being that the section about the First World War was a bit of a challenge for me, and I'd like to get their eyes on that section before a potential FAC, and second because it seems a good set of external eyes to go over the cricket bits for jargon and the like. Any thoughts? Harrias ^talk 22:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks good and passing now. Fair enough on Ancestry and I would probably agree with you if someone challenged it. Military history may be a good way forward and may help to get a few more eyes on it both before and during FAC. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)