Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugh Trumble

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 00:51, 10 May 2008.

Hugh Trumble

Self-nomination – I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I feel it meets the featured article criteria. The article is comprehensive, fully referenced, neutral and stable. I have tried to take on board criticism about other cricket biographies I have listed here including minimising jargon and making the article accessible to all readers, not just cricket enthusiasts. The article has been peer reviewed and is now listed here for your comment. Mattinbgn\talk 10:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    WP:IUP. "Transferred from en.wikipedia" with only a link to the main page is not acceptable; reference to the external source must be retained when transferring images to the Commons. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Mop holders can see the deleted pages, perhaps, but not the general populace. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can be seen if you follow the image through to Commons; i.e. Commons:Image:HughTrumbleOlder.jpg and scroll down. That is all the information that is available. If that is not acceptable, then perhaps the images should be tagged for deletion as unsourced. At the risk of seeing other Featured Articles sent to FAR, Clem Hill and Archie Jackson have PD images with the same (lack of) sourcing information. -- Mattinbgn\talk
If that's all that's there and all information has indeed been retained, the implication is that they were uploaded without source information. We need to know where they came from (e.g. a URL, "user X scanned this from Y", etc.); I don't see any such source information? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant above. All the information I have is there, there is nothing else. I didn't originally upload them (the original uploaders can be seen in the original upload log) and have no idea where they came from. They were available on en.wiki and I used CH2 to move them to Commons as they were tagged as in the public domain. If the sourcing is unacceptable, then perhaps they should be tagged for deletion as unsourced. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I certainly didn't mean to imply you'd done anything wrong. Regardless of their past, the images don't have sources now and that is a problem. The threshold for inclusion at Wiki is verifiability, after all, so deletion may indeed need to happen. Before that extreme, however, Phanto282 (talk · contribs), the original uploader for three of the four, appears to still be an active editor. Perhaps a query on his/her talk page would be best before taking the deletion route? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{restarting) I don't want the images deleted or removed but I was attempting to clarify if the lack of source information is grounds for deletion or if it just meant they could not be used in this article. Deletion, of course, would need to take place under Wikicommons policies, guidelines and procedures. I have taken your advice and asked the uploading editor to assist. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:HughTrumbleOlder.jpg now has a source. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uploading editor (who incidentally does a great job in finding old images for use in WP:CRICKET) seems to be away from Wikipedia for a while. I have found what I believe to be the sources of two of the images here and here. Of course I don't know for sure that these are the sources but it seems to me very likely. Can I amend the sourcing of those images or do I need to upload them again? -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, the sources have now been amended. At this stage I have been unable to find the source for the cigarette card image. I suspect it comes from an online auction catalogue somewhere but I can't seem to track it down. I will remove the image for now until I hear from the original uploader, I trust that would mean your concerns on images are satisfied. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a particular reason why the French spelling of debut is used?
    Journalist 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Huh, interesting. I just checked my Microsoft Word spell-checker (American English) by typing "debutt" and its first suggestion was début as well. ::shrug:: I must say, I hardly ever see début used anymore, but I asked out of curiosity more than anything. :)
    Journalist 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Easier to change to "debut" if that is less distracting -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (forgive my typing, I'm on the road with an unfamiliar laptop keyboard)

I'm on the road again, and the link checker tool doesn't like this hotel's ISP, I am getting a LOT of timeout errors, which I suspect are related to the hotel ISP. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philip Bailey who has been described as taking "this abtruse branch of science to levels that in other fields win Nobel Prizes" (Wisden 2004, p.9) by Matthew Engel, the editor of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack. For the purposes that it is used for here—scorecards and averages—it is as reliable as any other published source on the topic. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'll concur with that - it's pretty damn reliable and highly regarded by the cricket WikiProject. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably live with that statement on reliablity, but going to leave it out for others to see and decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, resolved issues. Dweller (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose by User:Dweller I loved this article. The guy's story is well-written and interesting. I also love his moustache, which I would be happy to see included mentioned in the article, esp as you mention his other physical distinctions! Mostly pernickety comments, but there are quite a few, mostly easily fixed. Or argued down of course:

Thanks for the thorough review. I am starting on them now. I love the moustache as well, but can't find any comment on it. It must have been reasonably standard facial hair for the time! -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a shame! :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*"He is one of only three bowlers to twice take a hat-trick in Test cricket." I think it'd be easier for readers to split into two wikilinks, so that hat-trick has its own link, making it very easy to understand what it is.

  • Agreed and done. I hope the manner in which they are linked is clear enough

*"Contemporary observers ... regard" regarded?

  • Changed by an earlier reviewer here. At the moment I am reading The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker and I had to really slog through the section where he is discussing tense and aspect. To me, the way it was originally written "sounds" better but I am happy to take guidance from those with more knowledge in the area.
  • Maybe there's an ambiguity. I thought you meant commentators of Trumble's day, but perhaps you mean people alive today. Given this confusion, perhaps it would be best to replace it with either "Modern observers" or "Observers in Trumble's day"? --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly what I meant, but it must be ambiguous. Reworded per your suggestion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:59, 6 May 2008

*Hall of Fame comment might need a little gloss, as it sounds like he was neglected for 100+ years, which is obviously not the case! How about mentioning which tranche of inductees he was in, or some such?

  • Agreed but pondering the best course of action. I will return to this one.
  • Added that the ACHOF was established in 1996, so he didn't have to wait that long. Hope this is suitable. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "solid" lower order batman - bit obscure for some readers. Try dependable?
  • Much better and included. Thanks
  • Does one think "on" the game or "about" it?
  • I would say either but will change for clarity
  • "In England in 1899 with the Australian team" take the last 4 words out of the link
  • Done
  • "1000 run – 100 wicket" looks like a sum. replace the dash with "and". And both should be plural.
  • I never thought of that but taking a second look perhaps it does. Changed per your suggestion
  • "In his last Test match, Trumble took a hat-trick, his second, in front of his home town supporters in Melbourne." Looks like too much detail for the Lead, esp as first hat-trick's not been specified, except at top where the feat of two has already been discussed, so drop for repetitiveness too.
  • I thought this was a great way to finish the cricket playing section of the lead. After retiring from cricket, he is asked to return to the field after his national team suffered a devastating loss. In his last Test match, played not only in his home town but on his home club ground, he takes a second hat-trick to win the match. That is fairy-tale boys-own annual material and I think important to keep in the lead.

*"Off the field, Trumble worked for a bank, rising to the position of branch manager" I'd expect probably 2 wikilinks in there

  • I assume you mean "bank" and "branch manager". Linking a standard English word like "Bank" seems to me to be
    overlinking. I am not sure what article I would link to for "branch manager" but reading again the meaning is not clear. I will reword. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What's a "warder"?
  • The source provides no context. However, according to my Concise Oxford Dictionary: warder: n. 1. Brit. a prison officer. 2. a guard. When reading the source and writing the article, it seemed clear to me that "prison officer" is what was meant by warder and I must admit I had no idea the word was used to mean "guard" in general. I could reword to prison officer but I don't know that I have enough context to make that assumption. Advice from others would be welcome
  • Further, his family's relocation to Ararat, Victoria is more evidence for "warder" meaning "prison officer" Ararat was home to a large prison/mental hospital (now a tourist attraction!) and it is not unlikely that the move was based on a posting to this prison. Once again, this is all assumption but not unreasonable I would have thought
  • Never mind. From here, "Irish-born William Trumble, lunatic asylum superintendent". Reworded now. An idle thought; I wonder if William Trumble was at Kew Asylum when Harry Trott was committed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this needs the specific citation in the right place. I left a tag in the article. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*I'm very worried about his public servant brother, who sounds like he had a truly massive demotion in his career. I'm more inclined to think there's a misunderstanding about him being "secretary for defence 1918-27". To my mind, this sounds like being a Minister of Government, which would mean going on to be "official secretary to the high commissioner for Australia in London" is a huge and unlikely step-down. Was he in fact a secretary working in the defence ministry? Sorry, that one might be an awkward one to sort out and I might just need to rely on you faithfully reporting what the RS has garbled.

  • From the original source "Trumble was appointed acting secretary in November 1914. He was secretary of the department from February 1918 to July 1927. His career was dramatic. As a comparatively young acting head in 1914, he had come through the civil service, whereas his predecessors had both been naval officers. Trumble had new ground to break." In Australia, Ministers of government are called just that - Ministers. They are politicians and Members of Parliament. Departmental secretaries are public servants (civil servants in British English) who manage the department. Ministers set policy, the department secretary provides advice to the minister and implements policies set by the Government. See Australian Public Service#Organisational Structure. Hence, Trumble was not a secretary but "the" secretary for the department, in other words the senior public servant in the department. Given the use of the term "secretary of defence" elsewhere, I will try and reword.
  • Now reworded and explanatory note added. Advise on the wording of the note is eagerly sought. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pedantically, he can't return "to suburban Camberwell" as he hadn't lived there before, though I know what you meant.
  • Reworded
  • "urged his sons to hit it when bowling" has an unfortunate ambiguity for those unfamiliar with jargon and line/length bowling. Try replacing "hit it" with "aim at it"
  • Reworded using your suggestion
  • Pitch is an ambiguous word, used twice in three sentences to mean very different things. You wikilinked the first - wikilink the second too, if necessary to Wiktionary
  • Rather than a link to Wiktionary, I have reworded. It seems using "pitch" to mean "bounce" is specific cricket jargon
  • Batting graph is really too small. And it's squashing the text between it and the smashing cigarette card image, which is a breach of MOS I think.
  • It certainly is a breach; MoS states "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other". My problem is that there is nowhere else where it really fits and shrinking it down was the only way I would keep it and all the photographs without squashing the text too much. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now moved thanks to the new section, where it does look much better. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (In similar Test cricket FA bios, I've used a statistical summary section, which allows the graphs and stats to breath a little and is the honey for the stats fans bees. Just a thought and not essential.)
  • A confession here. I used to love cricket statistics when I was younger. I would sit down with the ABC Cricket Book each season and memorise the highest scores, biggest partnerships, 5-wicket hauls etc. As I have grown older, I have less and less interest in statistics and now my eyes start to glaze over reading about them, let alone writing about them. My favourite part about writing cricket biographies is researching and writing the personality and style sections. Even writing a season-by-season rundown on a career can become a drag. However, since a statistical section was suggested in the peer review as well, perhaps it is worth having a shot at writing one. I will let you know how it goes. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I have had a shot at it. The prose for this new section has not been peer reviewed obviously so feedback is eagerly sought. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Move the summary of 1889-90 season to after the beer (needs a link) story.

  • Summary moved. Similar to "bank", linking "beer" seems a little gratuitous to me.
  • Do we know who the friend was? Player? Spectator? Administrator? Name?
  • I can't be more specific. From the RS, "To revive his spirits at lunch a friend suggested a glass of beer, his first taste of it" (Robinson, p. 90.)
  • "only the one wicket" is colloquial English. Drop the "the"
  • Done
  • Why mention his batting before his bowling in the first Test - in fact, I wouldn't mention the batting at all, other than perhaps he batted at number 11. No-one would have expected him to make runs
  • No real reason for mentioning his batting first other than he batted first. I included his batting here as he was later considered an all-rounder. This gives some idea about where he started from. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He retained his spot in the Test team for the second Test at The Oval where he failed to take a wicket." I would revise that to "Despite this lack of success, he retained his spot in the team for the second Test at The Oval where he failed to take a wicket."
  • Were there just 2 Tests or were there more for which he was dropped after those dreadful figures? If just two, I'd note it as "second and final Test".
  • The Third Test was abandoned due to rain before play started. Trumble was selected but obviously didn't play and the match is not recorded as an official Test match. This is unlike the similarly abandoned 3rd Test in Melbourne in 1970-71, whose status as an official match is disputed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the squad to tour England in 1893" wikilink some to our tour article

*You report Wisden complimenting his batting for 1893, but no stats (presumably they were for the tour games, because if he'd done much with the bat in the Tests, you'd have said so)

  • You are right: he did stuff-all with the bat in the Tests, 58 runs in three Tests. In all first-class matches he was much better, 774 at an average of 22. I will try and add something to the article to that nature. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only the one Test" colloq. again
  • Fixed
  • I've noticed some inconsistency about Second Test vs second Test. Please check.
  • Fixed
  • "In the first innings, England scored 75 runs with Trumble taking 3 wickets. England fought back in their second innings, scoring 475 runs—Trumble failing to take a wicket—and winning the Test by 94 runs." Awkward transition from perfect tense. The rest of the article is perfect tense (which is less journalistic and more encyclopedic)
  • After indicating my struggles with aspect and tense earlier, I don't know if I should be embarrassed that I had to look up
    perfect tense to understand what you meant. Even after reading the article, I am not sure if my reword has fixed the problem. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "Trumble was selected in the Australian team to tour England in 1896, despite a poor domestic season in 1895–96 where his place in the touring squad was seriously questioned by pundits." Why "where" his place? "and"? "when"? or just a semi colon?
  • Wisden's comment uses the troublesome "pitch" - I think it'd lose nothing to cut the quote two words shorter and it'd gain clarity
  • Pedantically - that's an autographed photo of Trumble from 1907

*"The 1899 Australian tour saw Trumble score 1,183 runs and take 142 wickets, only the second Australian, after George Giffen, to score" needs a little tweak. Either replace the comma after wickets with a semi colon or possibly a colon, or make it a full stop and add some words like "He was"

  • added semi-colon. A big improvement, thanks. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some MOS-breaking use of ... In mid quote, you'll need spaces before and after the dots, and I prefer to see them non-breaking spaces
  • fixed
  • Would be nice to spell out his age when he became captain
  • Wikilink Tasmania

*Not sure what's intended by "the only time that Trumble captained his country in Test cricket"

  • I thought it worthwhile to specifically spell out that these Tests would be the only two that Trumble would ever play as captain. He was a fill-in captain for a limited period only. I have replaced "time" with "occasion" if it helps.
  • Nice if you could add stat about how many hat-tricks had previously been achieved in Tests, to show the rarity of the feat
  • Team photo looks measly-sized. And "famed 1902 Australian touring team" sounds like POV.
  • I have not set an image size per
    WP:MOS#Image size. I can override viewer preferences to make it larger but I thought this was discouraged. Your advice? -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "With the ball greasy" I think that needs a "[wet]" for clarity
  • Age on retirement please
  • "relying on his change of pace and accuracy" misleadingly implies that he'd change his accuracy
  • I saw that myself much earlier in the writing process and made a mental note to come back and fix it but it slipped my mind. Thanks for picking it up.
  • Why's there a dash in "1,183–runs"? Perhaps a non breaking space was intended.
  • I don't have a dictionary to hand, but think "long prehensile" is a tautology. At least (if it isn't), the two adjectives need a comma. And prehensile would be best with a wiktionary link (it's a lovely word, but my English is native, fluent and educated and I'm still not 100% certain what it means)
  • From the Concise Oxford: prehensile: adj. Zool. (of a tail or limb) capable of grasping. Wiktionary has a better definition for my purpose; "adapted for grasping especially by wrapping around an object" While it may be a tautology insofar as "adapted for grasping" could assume length but I would prefer to keep both, with a comma as suggested. The term "prehensile" as I have used it is meant to suggest long and strong fingers capable of wrapping right around the ball. Note that there is an article on Prehensility but only in the strict zoological sense rather than the metaphoric sense that I intend. I have linked to the wiktionary article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they contorted themselves" - from context, I imagine that should be "they were made to contort themselves"
  • "in the know" is a colloquialism. Not sure how to address it, as it's probably the perfect expression. Wiktionary?
  • Linked to Wiktionary. I did think about a reword such as "in on the joke", "aware of the joke" etc. but none have quite the meaning I am looking for. -- Mattinbgn\talk
  • Section headed "Outside cricket" deals a great deal with... erm... cricket.
  • You are right of course. The section is about Trumble's deeds other than as a player. Would "Off the field" be better? Neither "Post retirement" or "Later life" quite fit. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was instrumental in attracting cricketers such as Bert Ironmonger—who Trumble saw" whom
  • Aarrgghh! "Whom" is what I had to begin with!. I spent a good twenty minutes searching the web for advice on the usage of who/whom and after reading what I had found, I was none the wiser. I took a punt on a 50-50 chance and got it wrong! Now changed back. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Melbourne Cricket Ground grew to a stadium capable of seating over 70,000 spectators." I'm afraid that made me laugh. What a cheap way of expanding a stadium - what on earth did they feed it? :-)
  • Really? I thought "grow" was a fairly standard metaphor for "increase in size", such as economic growth, exponential growth etc. Anyway, if the metaphor is distracting it shouldn't be used. Now changed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both sets of Hall of Fame material should be in one place. Move the earlier mention to here.
  • You cite Warner calling him "Hughie". Any thoughts on whether that (or anything else) was a nickname? Presumably not "that great camel"!
  • I can't find any mention of a nickname in the sources I have to hand. Warner's use of "Hughie" is interesting. The suffix "ie" is a common Australian English diminutive, cf. "Warnie", "Boonie" etc. I guess Warner picked it up from Trumble's Australian teammates. I would have thought someone of Warner's background would have been more likely to say something like "Good old Trummers" rather than an Australianism. By the way, "Hughie" is the name of the Australian rain god whose blessings are often requested by Australians with the plea "Send her down, Hughie". Trumble is seen as a possible derivation of this term[1] but I think it extremely unlikely. I will keep looking for a nickname. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for oppose, but thanks for a terrific read. Drop me a line when you respond. I may not be back though before Tuesday. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise for the oppose. FA status is a means to an end, to improve the article, not an end in itself. It is pointless supporting an article that is not up to speed. I have responded to all your concerns listed above and I think we still need to reach agreement on two points; the inclusion of Trumble's second hat-trick in the lead and compliance with MOSNUM. I think all the other points have been addressed but your feedback is sought on those matters as well as the new statistical analysis section. Thanks again for the review; it has taken my entire Saturday to get through it! Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Note to FA Director, (in case you're thinking of closing this anytime soon) I plan to review Maatinbgn's responses tomorrow and have high hopes of switching to support. --Dweller (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other Dweller comments "unstruck":
  • "6 wickets" should be six, later "3 wickets" etc. Please fix all per MOSNUM
  • I don't want to throw this FAC discussion off-track by discussing the ins and outs of MOSNUM but I have a real problem with the guidelines as they apply to sporting scores. For example, how should the following sentence be written:

    "Trumble took 6 wickets for 59 runs, including a 9 over spell of 5 wickets for 10 runs"

    Following MOSNUM, this should be "Trumble took six wickets for 59 runs, including a nine over spell of five wickets for 10 runs". The mix of numerals and words appears strange to me. If the exception—"Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs)"—was allowed in this case, then this sentence would be inconsistent with the remainder of the article. I would suggest that consistency within an entire article is preferable and that the use of numerals be allowed in the context of sports scores such as runs, wickets, goals, points etc. The opinion of MOS gurus on this point would be welcome and I am happy to take this discussion elsewhere if others feel it worthwhile. Of course, if the consensus is otherwise, I am happy to change. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)    [reply]
  • Your comment is reasonable. Happy to let this go, but leaving it unstruck in case anyone objects forcefully. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Trumble's improving batting returns lead to promotion up the order? Also, the reader's left to discern this improvement, rather than having it spelled out, which is a weakness
  • No doubt that it did, but I can't find a source to state that specifically. I agree that this is a weakness, but spelling this out would require either OR such as an assertion that "His improved batting saw him promoted in the batting order" or weasel words along the lines of "He was promoted in the batting order, most likely as a result of his improved batting." Your thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can note his promotion in the order, referenced to scorecard when it happened, and refer to improved performances using StatsGuru? I don't think using StatsGuru really breaks the spirit of OR. NB I note that the statistical summary section barely mentions his batting. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Switch to Support Great work and repeated apologies for being so pedantic. I am not insistent on the remaining issues about batting prowess, but I suspect knowing you that you'll make some alterations nonetheless. Looking forward to seeing that little star in the top rh corner. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much. I will have a bash at the batting this evening. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A really good article, and very interesting. With that said, here are some little issues I found.

  • Test cricket is linked twice in the first sentence. Is it possible to change the second link?
  • I changed the first one instead along with the wording. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to his best advantage. He was at his best on the softer pitches of England," two uses of best in short proximity. Try to change one of them.
  • Comma after 1890?
  • "1896 tour of England. In England in 1899 with the Australian team," This needs some work. England and in don't read well. Try moving England further down, and find a replacement for one of the ins.
  • "achieved 1000 runs and 100 wickets "double"" It sounds like it should be "acheived a", but a and the two plural words may not work well. Again, see if you can move some words around. I might put it like this: "achieved a "double" of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets", adding a comma to 1,000 as well.
  • Reworded along the lines of your suggestion, which is much better. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life and career: Dash needed for Scottish born.
  • Test cricket, Early struggle: Comma after George Giffen?
  • Established cricketer: "he could not see him as a member of a team for England that season" sounds like Trumble was going to play for England. I think you mean a team going to England.
  • The wording was from the RS, but it is ambiguous. Now changed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there nothing on the Third Test in 1897-98? Was it just not notable enough, or is this an omission?
  • Trumble didn't do much that match, but if you mention the other four matches it does seem strange to leave it out. Now added. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps mention the four draws in 1899. Having the text jump from one Test to nil to Third Test can be confusing for someone who doesn't know anything about cricket (like myself).

More later. Giants2008 (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I have responed to your suggestions and they have certainly improved the article. If you have time, please let me know what else you find. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 12:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments - Here are more things I found that could use changes.

  • Hat tricks and captaincy: "Trumble and Noble were the best performed Australian bowlers during the series". I don't like "performed" here. It looks like it should be "performing", but I think you could go without it altogether, assuming best by itself won't raise a POV red flag.
  • I should perhaps re-read
    these redundancy exercises as "best performed" or " best performing" is certainly redundant. I agree that "best" is perhaps POV so I have reworded to "most successful", objectively defined as having the most success in taking wickets; with the detail immediately following. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Third paragraph of section: There are two quotes from Wisden back-to-back. I think there should be a comma after the first quote.
  • "Trumble was persuaded to return to play" Two tos. I don't think "to play" is needed, but a rewording would also work.
  • Always be careful with words like remarkable. Considered remarkable would be less POV, with a reference of course.
  • Provided quite a glowing quote, editors familiar with the source may have an issue with using him as a RS for many things but in this case as it quite clearly opinion I don't think it is a problem. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after Test career, by the hat-trick.
  • Outstanding could be another problem. Assuming Trumble was named best bowler of the series by someone, it would probably be safer to change to "named outstanding". I'm not really picky about these issues, but many reviewers are.
  • The quote from the RS is "Though Warner's side won the series, Hugh was the outstanding bowler, 24 wickets in four Tests". I have reworded with the objective "most successful" which he was when measured by wickets taken. -- 09:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Style and personality: Comma after large nose. There are a bunch of ands in here as well.
  • added comma, replaced an "and" with a "while" which seems to me to read better. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "relying on his change of pace and his accuracy" Drop the second his.
  • Dropping the second "his" would lead to ambiguity with a possible, incorrect meaning of "changes of pace and changes of accuracy" rather than the intended meaning where his accuracy is constant and his pace changes. I will try and reword. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a small change to allow removing the second "his" without introducing ambiguity. Let me know if it is unsuitable. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy and statistical analysis: Comma after 69 occasions?
  • My first read of this I thought you meant I had used 69 commas in the section. I was impressed that you counted them all! A second read made it clear and it is now added -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off the playing field: Comma after Team of the Century.
  • "and in 2004 he was inducted into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame in recognition of his contribution to Australian cricket." There are two uses of Australian cricket here. How about "his contribution to the sport in Australia" or something similar?
  • Reworded along the lines of your suggestion -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Giants2008 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All responded to, thanks again for the review. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all my concerns addressed, I'm giving the article my Support. Giants2008 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support and assistance -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I do lend my support, although I do make a couple of points that I'm sure will be quickly sorted.
    • "Off the field, Trumble worked for a bank" if it is the national bank of australasia, then why not put that in the lead?
    • For those of us with large screens, there is a large gap after the "off the field section" which is a bit unsightly
    • The space is to stop the photograph in that section bunching with the foootnotes. I could force a smaller image but that would mean overriding user preferences for image sizing. I am happy to consider other options -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1902 australian tour photo is a little small, hard to pick out detail
    • I agree, but the image as uploaded is a small one. I could set a larger size but once again this would override user preferences on image sizes and my understanding is that this is discouraged. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On reflection, I have set the image to a fixed width of 250px as the lesser of two evils. I hope this does not inconvenience those users with other preferences. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • the image captions could be a bit more expanatory in places, rather than just stating what the image is of.
    • I have expanded the captions somewhat. I hope that is what you are after. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if some of those have been listed above. Good article SGGH speak! 16:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your support and suggestions. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I created Robert Trumble to fix a redlink SGGH speak! 08:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, what a great stub! -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hugh_Trumble&oldid=1138463330"