Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Hobbs/archive1

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 10:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Jack Hobbs

Featured article candidates/Jack Hobbs/archive1

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hobbs is generally rated among the top cricketers of all time, and was something of a pioneer in terms of batting technique and in establishing professional cricket as a respected occupation. He scored more first-class runs than anyone is ever going to again, was lauded wherever he played and was successful into his mid-40s at the top level. And all the while being a thoroughly nice chap, about whom no-one had a bad word to say. This article is currently a GA, and had a very thorough PR. It is quite long, but Hobbs had a very long, eventful career and I believe the length to be justified. All comments welcomed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers (and happily learned a thing or two during the process). All my minor quibbles were thoroughly dealt with there. This is, as the nominator says, a long article, but in my view it is the right length. There is no padding, no digression. The nature of the subject requires this length. The referencing is wide ranging and thorough, the proportions of the article well judged, the prose a pleasure to read; I am confident that this article meets the FA criteria. – Tim riley (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind comments and for your help at the PR. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and images as peer reviewer. I gave fairly extensive comments at the PR and further suggestions on that page have only led to improvements. Striking, quite easy to follow. Length is not an issue as the article is all meat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and earlier comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Check the link in ref 52 (I get "redirect loop")

Not for the first time this week, the re-organised MCC website has really messed up articles! That page is no more, but managed to find some other refs to replace it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also check ref 300 (I get "address not found")

And another major organisation re-organises... But searching for a replacement ref (this is the Hall of Fame thing) I realised that no-one, except for a couple of newspapers in India and Pakistan, paid any attention to this, including the British press, the ECB and Cricinfo. And now the ICC don't seem to refer to it on their own site. I could ref that he was in the HoF, but such sparse coverage, plus the rather more prestigious accolades he received, makes me think it is rather a waste of time including it at all. So I've cut it completely. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a minor format glitch in ref 312.

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look fine. A fuller review comment will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I spent a fair time on the peer review. I've just read the article again, and can find nothing further to say other than praise. Once again, well done, and keep up the good work. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help and the kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ by SchroCat (talk)

Apologies for not being able to return for the PR, although you had some magnificent help there—and from much better editors than I. A few minor comments from me:

Overall

This is a long article, but I found it pleasantly easy to read with no overly detailed areas, so well done on getting the difficult balance right there.
Money. You add his salary, benefit receipts etc from time to time. I appreciate that not everyone is a fan of modern day equivalents, but perhaps footnotes to give some frame of reference? (I'm not pushing this as a "must-do", but it's certainly something to think about)

There are useful comparisons in the "Family life" section, which give a good indication as to Hobbs's relatively affluent lifestyle. Calculated present-day equivalents are, in my view, best left out; there is no consensus as to their usefulness, and they often lead to arguments. The ifs and buts render such equivalents almost useless to the general reader. Brianboulton (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Brian said. I'd really prefer to avoid direct inflationary comparisons, and I could find no other data to compare except that in the Family life section. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all: as long as you've considered it and decided against it on solid grounds, then I'm happy with it. I understand the points on both sides regarding this one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First-class cricketer

Gentlemen v Players: "he was unsuccessful in both games". This leaves me itching to see what he did! Perhaps a note?

Clarified that he scored few runs. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominance in South Africa

Perhaps a link to University of Oxford, piped or otherwise?

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership with Sutcliffe

Wife? When did that happen? There's no previous reference to him being married: perhaps a brief passing mention at the appropriate time, possibly (in addition to the more full section I see at the bottom of the article)?

I've wrestled a bit with his wife! Adding her at the time of his marriage rather interrupts the flow and bloats the section. But she needs to be mentioned here as part of the events prior to the tour. So I've named her here but would prefer to otherwise confine her to the family section. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation and legacy

"In 1963, Neville Cardus chose him as one of the best six cricketers of the past 100 years, to mark Wisden's centenary": past 100 years could be taken ambiguously, perhaps "the previous 100 years"?

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

1: should Wisden be in italics?

Yup. Done now. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

276: You list The Guardian as being published in London: I think it was still in based in Manchester in 1963 (with the move that followed in '64)

Didn't realise that! I assumed it moved when it stopped being the Manchester Guardian. Great catch. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

277: Date of retrieval isn't needed for news reports, even if acquired from an online source: you have the date and page, which is sufficient.

I prefer to do so when including a url. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All rather minor and only a couple of them being something that should be done: the remainder are more in the line of suggestions to think through. Aside from that, excellent work on a getting such a fine article crafted from such a large subject. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good and I've moved to a support on this - an excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I had my pennies worth at the peer review, and was more than happy with the responses. The article has only improved since then. It is well illustrated, thorough in its research, and the prose is excellent. -- Cassianto ^Talk 11:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and kind comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I made my few measly comments at PR and have nothing more to add, other than that this is another in a long line of supurb cricket bios that is definitely worthy of the FA star. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Good work on the article, got nothing to comment on. Zia Khan 23:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.