From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sahara4u ( talk · contribs) 06:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Lead

  • Any image for the lede?
  • You may link English and Nottinghamshire
  • "His best year was in 1882,..." no need of "in"
  • In the article you are saying that his bowling average is 10.95 whereas in the infobox it is 12.48.

Early career

  • eight wickets and conceded 88 → eight wickets and conceded eighty-eight........... as you have done in the next sentence
  • twenty eight → twenty-eight
  • Link innings

Lancashire professional

  • Crossland's performances for Enfield ... Whay is Enfield?
  • twenty six → twenty-six
  • ....at the Oval.[15] → I think this should be The Oval
  • ...touring Australians,[17] In the ..... In should be in
  • claiming seven wickets for 72.[20] → "seventy-two" for consistency

Throwing controversies

  • ...he was never no balled by the umpires.[8] → it was never given no ball by the umpires.
  • ...eight for 57... for consistency "fifty-seven"
  • A link to "gentlemen's"

Termination of county cricket career

  • he took four for 52 and three for 51 .....→ You are not consistant about numbering throughout the article.
  • ...at Old Trafford. → at the Old Trafford.
  • Old Trafford is just referred to as such, without the definite article. It would be "the Old Trafford Cricket Ground" though.

Later life and career

  • ...after his explusion.... → "expulsion"
  • ...bowlers came to a close,... no need of "a"

Very smoothly written, I really appreciate your work! Zia Khan 06:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you, as always, for your feedback and review. I think I have dealt with all of your comments, feel free to ping me if I've missed anything. I look forward to any further comments you might provide. Harrias talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Link CricketArchive
  • Why are refs 49 and 51 in Italic
  • In ref 49, what "(1980) and [1899]" means?

Final review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  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:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a: b:
  7. Conclusion: Promoted to GA status, good work. Keep it up! Zia Khan 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    Pass/Fail: