Wikipedia:Peer review/Adelaide leak/archive1

Adelaide leak

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take it to FAC soon. It is already a GA and got good feedback there. As ever, I'd like to know how it reads to the non-cricketer, although this one is quite light on cricket terminology and is more about the people. Also, is it all clear enough about what was going on and why it is significant. And although it needs quite a lot of background to give the events some context, is that section an appropriate length?

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Hi, Sarastro, I'll try and get to reviewing this in couple of days. One thing that struck me is that, though I've read (and played) a lot of cricket in the past 30-odd years, and know all about the Adelaide shenanigans to which you refer, I've never heard the term "Adelaide leak" applied to this incident before. I had no idea this was a cricket article until I looked it up. Did you invent the title, or has it been used by others? Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, as ever. Yes, it has been called "Adelaide leak", but not sure how official that is. I think Fingleton refers to it as such, but I've heard it elsewhere. David Frith, in his book, says the event "has become known as the Adelaide Leak." (And I just realised he capitalises it as well) --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough. If Frith's comment is not already in your text, it might be as well to include it as a cast iron justification for your choice of title. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• I suggest adding a "See also" section, along with a portal or two, such as Portal:Cricket.

• Besides that, I can't see any areas for improvement except changing the reference formatting using the Harvard style using templates, because they're neater (I think). If you can't do it, just tell me. Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!)} 06:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I will have to review in instalments, so here are some comments on the lead and first main section.

Lead

• The opening sentence needs to be more specific about the nature of this leak; it could on swift reading refer to, say, a water leak from a hosepipe (this happened at Melbourne in 1954–55, so it's not a far-fetched misunderstanding). I suggest you begin "The Adelaide leak was the revelation of a dressing-room incident which occurred during the third Test match...." I would delete the words "played at the Adelaide Oval" from the end of the sentence, as unnecessary
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• I would begin the second sentence: "During the course of play..."
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Is it customary to say "Test match" or "Test Match"? I would have thought the latter was more usual.
  • My preference would be Test match, and I believe that is what WP:CRIC goes for.

Background

• Avoid close repeat of "series" in opening sentence. Perhaps "a highly acrimonious contest"?
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Again, "controversial" appears twice in quick succession. One could be "contentious"
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Was it just the commentators who feared that Bradman would be unstoppable an looked for weaknesses? If my memory serves me correctly, this was a concern of several active in the game. I would also elaborate slightly: "looked for weaknesses in his batting technique".
  • Done: made it into cricketers and administrators.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• "...in the press, Warner was highly critical of the Yorkshire bowlers..." Perhaps explain this is Warner in his capacity as cricket correspondent of the Morning Post.
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Third paragraph, suggest begin "In Australia, while Jardine's..." etc
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• "an Australian XI" sounds a mite informal to the uninitiated, rather like some scratch XI. I would expand: "This changed in the match against a representative "Australian XI" at near full strength, in which..." etc
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Former players joined the criticism..." - "Some former Australian players..."?
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Warner shouldn't suddenly become "Plum Warner". I would prefer just "Warner".
  • Done: it was overlinked to a dab page too.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• The suggestion that the Fingelton-Bradman hostility arose partly from their religious differences needs to be very specifically cited, and also to reflect the source exactly. What Frith says is "Bradman then ["then" being in 1992] confirmed the causes of Fingleton's animosity towards him, citing the problem of the opposing religions..." Bradman is evidently being quoted by Gilbert Mant, some 60 years after the event. I don't think the sources support the bald, apparently factual statement in the article that "Some of the differences stemmed from differences in religion; Fingleton was a Roman Catholic, Bradman an Anglican." The next sentence refers to "later" hostility arising from Bradman/s preference for Brown, but it seems this is still Mant reporting on his 1992 correspondence with Bradman.
  • Tried to clear this up. Moved the religious part to the end of the section and attributed it to Bradman's view. Added more from Fingo biography about their first meetings (as this is directly relevant to the article as it concerns their early relationship) and found some better material in the Growden book to cover Bill Brown. Hopefully this reflects the sources better. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, it certainly does. No quarrel with this. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Final paragraph: clarify that the "ongoing argument" was with the Board of Control.
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Continuing:

Woodfull's injury

• Clarify that the Australian innings began mid-afternoon on the second day.
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Woodfull and Fingleton opened the innings. In the third over the injury to Woodfull occurs, and we are told that Bradman was batting at the time. A brief reference to Finglton's dismissal (c. Ames b. Allen 0) is necessary.
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Also it is relevant that in this over, Larwood was not bowling to his "bodyline" field.
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Some extraneous information, e.g. "Vic Richardson replaced him at the crease" is distracting. The following sentence, about the doctor being called for Voce, makes more sense without this intervention
  • Removed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Warner's visit

• I think it should be explained in the text that Ryder and Jones were former players, rather than relying on the links.
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Leak

• "No play took place on the next day, Sunday being a rest day." A bit clumsy; perhaps "Sunday being a rest day, no play took place". and perhaps just "On Monday" rather than "On the following Monday"
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• "prised" → "prized"
  • Oops, not sure how that slipped through! --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Inconsistencies between "press" and "Press" need to be sorted out
  • Done, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Suspects

• This sentence needs some attention: "Fingleton's executor, Malcolm Gemmell, replied in a magazine article providing some circumstantial evidence to support Fingleton's accusation: that Bradman wrote for the Sun, was the prime target of Bodyline, and had previously urged the Australian Board of Control to object to the tactic." This is not "providing evidence", it is summarising certain facts which, I would have thought, were reasonably well-established.
  • Done, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Fingleton's brother supported this claim..." Not clear what "claim" this refers to.
• Clarified. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Gilbert Mant, a journalist who covered the tour, investigated the leak and arranged for a summary of his findings to be sent to David Frith after his death in 1997". This sounds as though Mant knew he would die in 1997 - or that "his death" refers to Frith. Suggest reword.
  • Reworded, although Mant knew he was dying when he sent the summary, according to Frith. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• "While Mant believed that Corbett may have played a joke on Fingleton in naming the culprit, he would not have done so with his wife." This opinion needs specific attribution to Frith, not just citation
  • The opinion is actually Mant's, reported by Frith. I've cleared this up in the text. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

• There are some long strings of blue in the text, which could perhaps be reduced by some textual rearrangement. Also, Thomas was known as "J.H. Thomas" rather than John Henry Thomas.
  • Done the best I can here without just unlinking some of the obscure government positions. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see "J.H." rather than "John Henry"; It's a bit like "T.S. Eliot" rather than "Thomas Stearns".
• "The final sentence "Fingleton was dropped..." etc is extraneous.
  • I'll take it out. I quite liked it as it finished Fingleton's role nicely, but I take your point as it doesn't mention the "fate" of the other players. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

General point

In the text you mention information in Fingleton's 1978 biography of Trumper (the worst book Fingleton ever wrote, incidentally), yet it does not appear in the bibliography.

It's not directly quoted in the text, only a mention of it in another book. That's why it isn't there. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an engrossing account of a curious incident which somehow seems to show almost everyone involved in a poor light. The points I have raised are mainly cosmetic and should be quite easily dealt with. Please let me know when the fixes are done and I'll give it a final readthrough. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and helpful comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

All review points answered (except for my preference over Thomas's name). I think this is an excellent article; please let me know when you nominate it at FAC. By the way, I don't agree with the suggestion of a "See also" section, and the ref formats are fine. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)