Dweller
 | Please note: ♦I rarely edit at weekends. ♦This is one of Wikipedia's most edited pages. ♦I am sometimes mistaken for Doug Weller, Doug Coldwell and possibly even Doug. All great editors, but they're not me. I'm more Doug-less than Douglas. My username is explained on my userpage. |
The Don
Thanks. I plan to do a full-scale run-through shortly - perhaps during the end of the New Zealand innings at Old Trafford today? - and am getting hold of a couple of references to fill out one or two bits. Incidentally, do you have JSTOR access? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Bradman
I've looked at the lead. Lots of work required. Needs collaboration by others throughout. Thus far, your first issue is definitely a problem; I don't see flow and technicality as issues—not thus far, nor during a quick flick through.
- Opening sentence POV, I think. I've heard opinions that he wouldn't measure up to today's batsmen. Tone it down. "Was considered to be one of the greatest batsmen of the time (or "of the 20th century" if you think you can go that far). Generally, the opening para is, yes, just too praising.
- "Around" --> "in".
- "myriad" = 10,000?
- "Committed to attacking, entertaining cricket,..."—"attacking" doesn't go with "entertaining", and I took the opening grammar the wrong way. (Attacking what?)
- "within" --> "in"
- "even as he became reclusive"—"after"?
- Puke: do we have to bring that little cunt into it? (Howard). Who on earth cares what he thinks? And "living Australian" appears twice at the end.TONY (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
PS On the bright side, this has potential to be a FA. Your writing holds together quite well, if you ignore the many little glitches (that's better than most people's!).
- Some of this I agree with, but I'd say the consensus is so overwhelming about Bradman's exceptional record that I think we can say "greatest" in WP's voice, despite the marginal, dissenting voices you mention.
- Howard - what, isn't he a frequently quoted expert? :)
- I also think that "attacking, entertaining" is OK, as it implies two different characteristics of his batting. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Some comments on the mini-review above from Tony. I agree in general about the over-praising of Bradman, although I think the criticism was more along the lines that that modern scientific field placing etc. may have made him less of a statistical anomaly, but still a very, very good batsman. Secondly, Howard did not make a claim about Bradman as a cricketer, and therefore Howard's level of cricket expertise is irrelevant. Howard claimed that Bradman was the greatest living Australian. Regardless of anyone's opinion of Howard, he was the Prime Minister at the time and the community that Howard generally spoke for on cultural matters (once again regardless of one's opinion ...) is large and influential. As such this statement is significant enough for inclusion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that the Wisden article referenced by Wisden Cricketers of the Century provides convincing support for the claim that Bradman was not just the greatest batsman, but the greatest cricketer of the 20th century. 100 experts each had to cast votes for who they considered to be the five greatest cricketers of the 20th century. Bradman was selected by all 100, and only Sobers - with 90 votes - came anywhere close. I think that those modern players who cast doubt on his pre-eminence in general lack nuch knowledge of cricket history. Being English, I'm not writing as a particular fan of Bradman, but I think it would be a mistake to tone down the article too much in a search for "balance" - the man was phenomenal. JH (talk page) 20:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- "I'm finally beginning to make some headway at Bradman's PR. I'd like to bowdlerise (sp?) User_talk:Dweller#Bradman to the relevant PR." Please feel free. I think that the word you were looking for was "plagiarise". :) JH (talk page) 17:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- "The greatest" will be knocked down at FAC. It leaves no room for doubt, and according to what standards and variables was he that? There's room for opinion, and WP should not pontificate. As far as Howard goes, why bring some self-confessed "cricket tragedy" into it—one who's not a technical expert from a player's/trainer's/commentator's angle, and who himself is a controversial figure? "the community that Howard generally spoke for on cultural matters (once again regardless of one's opinion ...) is large and influential"—dont' make some of our readers puke. The authority and status of the article will suffer if controversial statements are deliberately inserted. B. was "phenomenal" for his day, but the claims here are significantly wider than that. TONY (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC) "Attacking, entertaining"—this awkward juxtaposition begs the question of whether the "attacking" bit (better "aggressive", surely) is what made is entertaining. I'm not sure this strong line is what you want to spin. TONY (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- *Puke: do we have to bring that little cunt into it? (Howard). Who on earth cares what he thinks?. What does this sort of language bring to the table? The reference to Howard was added to the article recently; he was quoting a phrase that was sometimes used in Bradman's later years. BTW, the phrase is "cricket tragic" not "cricket tragedy", probably Howard's only true addition to the Australian vernacular. If you want to essay a stab at Bradman's place in cricket history based on the old chestnut that modern cricket is sooooooooooo much better, try talking to someone who has played the game at any level and see if they reckon they can knock up a ton every third time they wander out to bat.
- Phanto282 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added a couple of comments on the peer review, about the "attacking, entertaining cricket" issue amd the Accrington question. However the peer review link took me to Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Bradman/archive2 and I wondered whether the "archive2" bit meant that I should no longer be adding stuff there. (I still did so, though.) JH (talk page) 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You have one. ;) Regards, Anthøny 18:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Good to see you are helping the conrinsh regionalists disrput wikipedia as usual. A handful of these editors go around removing England from articles regarding Cornwall as they are under the illusion Cornwall is a country.
History of cricket: peer review
Hello again. Thanks for your inputs to this review. I'm going to do some work on the article this weekend to make use of the feedback received. I'll report back when I've made some progress. All the best. BlackJack | talk page 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)