Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/D'Oliveira affair/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

D'Oliveira affair

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The D'Oliveira affair was a notorious event in 1968; it was technically a cricket controversy but went way beyond cricket. It involved the English Establishment having to confront apartheid, something they were very reluctant to do. Cliftonian and I have been working on this one for a while, and we are aiming at FAC. Any comment would be welcome, but particularly on POV. It is easy to drift into giving opinions on a topic like this; hopefully it is not too sensationalist either. But any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Does the lead work? Too detailed? Not enough? Does it cover enough about what Vorster was up to? Do we need the bribery? (I hate writing leads!) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments
[edit]
  • Some elements of the lede seem repetitive, such as no compromise being possible
  • I've reworked a little bit, but could you be more specific here? I can't quite see the wood for the trees but am conscious that there is a little work to do on the lead. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under apartheid, this became official policy. The government reasoned that black, Coloured (mixed race) and Indian players were inherently inferior and not worthy of selection, so national teams in all sports were legally required to be exclusively white. - feels like this could/should be merged
  • Any better?
  • pressurising or pressuring?
  • for two years from 1961, then again from 1964 - I'm not clear what you mean here
  • Suggest linking United Nations, Fencing, (others to follow)
  • Interior Minister P. M. K. Le Roux - Surprised he doesn't have an article. There's one in French and Afrikaans, though
  • South African Prime Minister - you've linked PM of the UK above, but not PM of SA here?
  • mixed-race sport to prevent South Africa's sporting isolation. - too much sport
  • more specifically the MCC, whom Vorster believed would determine selection policy - would or could?
  • such as the Worcestershire club secretary and the former West Indies Test player and race relations activist Learie Constantine, - So many ands...
  • He signed a contract to cover the tour for the News of the World newspaper, which drew criticism from other newspapers and shook Vorster.[123] At the time, non-whites were not allowed into South African press boxes other than "in a menial capacity"—Vorster suggested that D'Oliveira may not even be allowed on the tour as a journalist. - You have this both shaking Vorster and him being explicit about D'Oliveira not being able to be a journalist. Feels rather contradictory. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Sheppard and other MCC rebels - is "rebels" NPOV?

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]
  • Lead
    • In re your questions above: I too hate writing leads, and as a fellow sufferer I'm glad to say I think you've got it spot on. I always leave the lead till last when I do a review, and coming to it after reading the rest I think it rehearses all the salient points and has no superfluous matter.
    • "With the 1968–69 Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) tour of South Africa already scheduled" – I know you add a note to the main text about MCC/England, but in the lead I think your wording may perplex some people unfamiliar with the oddities of our national game. Could you perhaps move the MCC's first mention to the opening para: "whether or not the England team selectors (the MCC)…" or similar?
      • I think I may have dislocated something in my brain trying to find a way to do this! The simplest way I can find is to use the note a second time in the lead, but there is still some England/MCC confusion in the lead. But I think this is one of the very few occasions where a distinction needs to be made between "England" and the MCC team, even though the England selectors chose the latter. Aarrggh! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about simply putting "the scheduled 1968–69 tour of South Africa by Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the England cricket team." with the footnote as well to make things clear? I think this delicately and concisely intimates that the England cricket team was subordinate to the MCC without taking up too much space explaining it. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only problem is that this suggests that they were two separate entities, when for the purposes of the tour, they were actually the same. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought the wording got that over quite nicely that the two were basically the same thing but not quite. The footnote certainly made clear. I really think the first sentence must mention that it is the England cricket team we are talking about. How about "the scheduled 1968–69 tour of South Africa by the England cricket team, officially representing Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)"? Or something like that —Cliftonian (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the ramifications of D'Oliveira's possible inclusion" – I love the word "ramifications", but I think a plain "consequences" would be stronger here.
    • "the MCC's reluctance to firmly tackle the problem" – I'd lose the adverb, I think. Stronger without it.
    • "amid a slump in form" – amid a slump in his form?
  • England
    • "Harold Macmillan criticised apartheid in his "Wind of Change" speech" – I'd like at least a footnote summarising what Macmillan said. I believe he got warm applause from the parliamentarians, which, if correct, must surely mean that his criticisms were wrapped up.
      • I might see if Cliftonian can do anything with this first, as he has some good stuff here. If not, I'll have a go! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry for taking a couple days, I was away. I have rephrased slightly and added a footnote here with a reference to a BBC summary that I think captures it pretty well (can easily add more if anybody thinks necessary). Macmillan actually got a pretty frosty reception. I've found a complete transcript of the speech here if any of you are interested in reading it. In a nutshell Macmillan praised South Africa's achievements and advances under white rule but made clear that rising black political ambitions had become a fact "whether we like it or not" and that Britain's attitude was that this should be accommodated and embraced rather than suppressed. While the content of the speech had been expected, it was the straightforward tone of Macmillan's admonishing speech that really shook the South Africans; they had not expected him to be so forthright. The parliamentarians listened in silence and at the end some refused to applaud. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • International sport
  • D'Oliveira
    • "Qualifying for the county team through residency" – a footnote here, too, would be helpful. I believe there used to be a county in a remote part of the North East of England who insisted that their players must be born there, but I have no notion what the rules of other counties were. Something on the lines of "Players needed to have lived x years/months/nanoseconds in the county to quality" would be useful.
  • MCC manoeuvres
  • South African plan
    • "the English selectors—or more specifically the MCC, whom Vorster believed would determine selection policy" – "who", not "whom"
  • D'Oliveira in 1968
    • "Oborne points out that, from a cricketing viewpoint, the decision to drop D'Oliveira looks odd" – "points out" implies endorsement of the statement. Better to have a neutral phrase such as "comments"
    • "to indirectly bribe D'Oliveira" – some people (of whom I am definitely not one) still cling to the old and silly superstition that splitting an infinitive is a mortal sin. I try to avoid grief by not splitting if I can avoid it, so perhaps "to bribe D'Oliveira indirectly"?
  • Selection meeting
    • "Oborne points out that, judged in cricketing terms" – another pointing out. More neutral term wanted, I'd say.
    • [passing comment] This article is making me feel old. Keith Fletcher is the second player mentioned so far whom I saw play in my youth, deadly Derek being the first.
  • Reaction
  • Cancellation
    • "Denis Howell felt the need to publicly state" – another split infinitive you could lose, to keep the fetishists happy
    • "The South African Prime Minister expressed similar sentiments elsewhere" – I stopped in my tracks here, thinking "But wasn't Vorster the Prime Minister"? Then I realised you were referring to Vorster, and I think you should just use his name here.

That's all from me. This is a first rate article, clear, neutral (I was on a sharp lookout for POV as mentioned in your preamble, above), compellingly readable – with a touch of car-crash fascination about the events – and widely sourced. I remember as a teenager feeling embarrassed for my country about this débâcle, and this fine article reminds me why. Lord deliver us from Lord's! See you at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and help here. All done but one, which I'm hoping Cliftonian can do better than me! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

[edit]

This is probably the most important of all cricket articles, exposing the grim truth about the despicable hierarchy that ruled the game for a century (and is by no means wholly absent in the inner counsels now, I can assure you). Congratulations on your work in excavating the story and keeping your composure while telling it. So far I have read up to and including the "MCC manoeuvres" section, and these are my comments and suggestions:

  • "surrounding the build-up to" is a bit heavy-footed. As the affair had rmifications well beyond the "build-up" phase, I'd simplify this to "relating to".
  • "With the already scheduled, the ramifications of D'Oliveira's possible inclusion were discussed by English and South African cricketing bodies as early as 1966." Suggested rearrangement (avoiding the awkwardness of "already scheduled"): "The ramifications of D'Oliveira's possible inclusion in the 1968–69 Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) tour of South Africa were discussed by English and South African cricketing bodies as early as 1966".
  • I think the second part of the second paragraph is a little overdetailed and could be shortened. Here is a suggestion:

Manoeuvring by cricketing and political figures in both countries did little to bring the matter to a head. The MCC's priority was to maintain traditional links with South Africa and have the series go ahead without incident. South Africa's Prime Minister B. J. Vorster sought to appease international opinion by publicly indicating that D'Oliveira's inclusion would be acceptable, but secretly did all he could to prevent it.

  • Tim hasn't commented, but although widely used (and possibly in some dictionaries), I believe that "underway" (one word) is a linguistic abomination (along with "onto" and "alright"). Please make it two.
    • I was going to add exactly that comment, but I checked in the OED which admits "underway", and gives citations from as far back as the 1930s. I agree with Brian wholeheartedly, nonetheless. (And about "alright", too; I'm never sure about "onto".) Tim riley (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "near-complete isolation from international cricket from 1971" – I thought it was complete. Rebel tours did not have international status.
  • No, but they were international matches and were regarded as such in SA. And the stink they caused suggests that others did so as well. It could be reworded as "complete isolation from official international cricket" if you think that would be better. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Test team ... had always been all white." There is the case of C.B. Llewellyn who played in the 1890s and 1900s. He is reported to have been of mixed race and to have been abused for this reason by some of his team-mates. On the other hand his descendents have insisted that he was white through and through. I wouldn't suggest adding to the text, but a possible footnote?
  • Oborne suggests..." You should introduce him here, at first mention.
  • "Suspension from the Olympics had a greater effect;[20] a similar campaign from within South Africa and the consequent change in international opinion resulted in South Africa being barred from the 1964 Olympics and those that followed." This is confusing – "a similar campaign" to what?
  • "Basil D'Oliveira was born in Cape Town..." Perhaps include his year of birth, so that readers can judge where he was in his career, when he approached Arlott
  • "Build-up" heading needs a hyphen
  • "The MCC decided later in 1967 to clarify that there would be no limitations imposed by Vorster's government on the players chosen for the tour." Better in active voice: "The MCC decided later in 1967 to clarify that Vorster's government would impose no limitations on the players chosen for the tour."
  • "In March 1968, having received no response from the SACA..." Clarify "no responseto Griffiths's letter from the SACA"
  • "Following this advice" - specify whose.

I will be back with more sooon. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the gremlins have struck, and I am temporarily without any internet access whatever, at home. How long this will last is anybody's guess (hours, days, weeks?), but I can't continue with the review for the moment. I will try to keep you posted via my local library. Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a little later): The gremlins have surprisingly relented, so I should be OK to resume shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remaining comments
  • "he took the unusual step..." hint of the editorial voice here.
  • "...Isaacs, who offered him warm hospitality if he toured South Africa in the winter." I'm a bit confused by this. In the previous paragraph Isaacs is named as one of those behind schemes to ensure that D'Oliveira was not a member of the touring party. Was Isaacs simply being two-faced?
  • The source does not make it clear; there is a hint that Oborne thinks it was all bollocks from Isaacs, but it looks like it comes from D'Olly's biography. I can only assume that it was two-facedness, but I can't really say so outright without the source. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "posits" is one of the words ("opined" is another) that in my view should never be used more than once in a single article. Current score 4.
  • "The game began with Australia holding a 1–0 lead in the series, leaving England needing a win to draw the series." Repetition of "the series" should be avoided.
  • "Wisden reported: "In the last hour D'Oliveira began his fine effort. He hooked the short ball superbly and next day drove magnificently."[92] At the end of the first day, he had scored 23 runs." It would make sense to omit the words "and next day drove magnificently" from the quotation
  • "Cowdrey questioned him about what to expect..." That doesn't sound right; perhaps "Cowdrey advised him about what to expect, and asked how he would handle..." etc.
  • "no one" should not be hyphenated
  • "if May had found out the true state of affairs..." – probably better as "if May had been aware of the true state of affairs..."
  • Perhaps the final paragraph of the "Selection meeting" sectionshould be split at "D'Oliveira, who learned of his omission..."
  • It's within a quote, but "not to press for an answer to the MCC demand there should be..." is missing a "that" after "demand".
  • "Additionally, he had considered withdrawing from the tour on moral grounds" – suggest get rid of the unnecessary adverb
  • "reservations about becoming involved" → "reservations about involvement"
  • "...but Cartwright would not be convinced" – "convinced" sounds like the wrong verb. Why not: " but Cartwright was adamant".
  • "David Sheppard and other MCC rebels..." → "Sheppard and other MCC rebels...". In any event I find the wording here bit clumsy. Who called the SGM? Also, the mishandled selection process does not amount to a "proposal". A minor rewrite of the paragraph is advised.
  • "Williams believes that the vote suggests..." Needs to be stronger, e.g. "Williams suggests that the vote indicates..."
  • Suggest delete the "however" in second para of "Aftermath"

A very impressive article indeed. Minor polishing should ensure success at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto comments

[edit]

I will be reading through this over the next day or so and jot down as I go along. I fixed a few ref formatting inconsistencies, hope you don't mind. Cassiantotalk 21:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his biography of D'Oliveira..." – First mention of Basil here, but no introduction beforehand within the body. I had to skip back up to the lede to remind myself again.
  • I am tempted to say that linking "Prime Minister" is unnecessary as most would, I think, know what one is.
  • "As many players and officials had family and friends in South Africa..." – Could we get away with "in the country" as opposed to South Africa? We do speak of it in the previous sentence.
  • "However, because neither fencing nor football was closely followed in white South Africa..." We speak of two sports so would "were" work better than "was"?

I have read through and see no further problems. This is an extremely watertight article, as I would expect owing to the brilliant reviewers before me. One thing, why do we repeat ref [155] consecutively in the final paragraph? Cassiantotalk 10:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and for taking a look. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/D%27Oliveira_affair/archive1&oldid=601712632"