Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Bradman/archive2

Donald Bradman

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… after a lot of work by a lot of editors, the article's getting close to readiness for another run at FAC. And just in time for his hundredth birthday.

As I write, I'm aware that there's still 5 outstanding citations needed (flagged). There's been a mammoth amount of citing of late, which means the article has >200 refs.

I'm particularly concerned about hagiography and comprehensiveness. A number of 'daughter articles' have been created to deal with WP:SIZE issues; the article is still over 100Kb long, but I'd argue it needs to be to reflect such a very long and outstanding career.

Thanks, Dweller (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments x-posted from Sandy Georgia's talk page.

It's 57KB—9,850 words—readable prose, according to Dr pda's prose size script (per WP:SIZE). I get uncomfortable between 55 and 60, but my eyes glaze over when readable prose gets above 60, as that's always veering into a book with more than 10,000 words rather than encyclopedia article, IMO. However, consensus has gone against my opinions on size many times, and anything less than 10,000 words usually does fine. You should be prepared to argue that you've used Summary style effectively. Have you considered a structure like Hugo Chávez, Early life of Hugo Chávez and Military career of Hugo Chávez? (I saw some curly quotes that need to be replaced, did a sample, and some hyphens that want to be dashes, and I fixed some footnote placement).) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy's kindly offered to fix the curly quotes herself. I'll check the hyphen/dashes now. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is just about short enough to warrant keeping it together. It's particularly hard, with Bradman, to seperate out the two main parts of his career (playing and administration) as they overlapped, both in time and theme. I'll go with the precedents you've helpfully pointed to (!) for long articles - this is considerably shorter that most of them and the length is not undue. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you were wanting FAC soon, and I just looked at sources like I would have at FAC. I did not look over the prose. 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, that's great stuff, thanks. Your review is much appreciated. I'll get cracking with them, probably starting tomorrow. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth. Sorry it took me so long to finish this bunch. Very helpful indeed. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso I have no doubt that by the time this comes to FAC it will sail through. The length of the article makes it difficult to review thoroughly in a single sitting, but in all but one of the sections I looked at I found nothing major.

  • I think the amount of attention paid to Charles' Davis statistical comparison is undue weight. It looks (though it is not possible to say from the references given) like he has assumed that all metrics used to measure sporting prowess follow a Gaussian distribution, which is a large assumption. The analysis also assumes that the metrics chosen are the definitive measure of ability. In cricket's case this ignores bowling ability, for example.
  • Donald Bradman was the youngest child of George Bradman and his wife Emily (nee Whatman) when he was born on 27 August 1908 - Every child is the youngest in the family when they are born...
  • Bradman began the tour with 236 at Worcester and did not look back - a touch informal.
  • The statistics Bradman achieved on the tour in general and in the Test matches in particular, broke records for the day and some have stood the test of time. - This sentence or the ones that follow could do with some adjustment, as there is an element of repetition. Perhaps and some have stood the test of time could be removed.
  • A subsection titled "near death", but this is the subject of the final two paragraphs only, holding little relevance to the rest. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good meaty stuff, thanks. Delighted to get the opportunity to fix before FAC! --Dweller (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Helpful comments. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Tintin
Yeah... good spot. I'll clarify this. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am hesitant to raise this point as it has been there for a long time - Best of the Best now commands two paragraphs and a table. Does a single book, that is not even primarily about Bradman, deserve so much space ? Tintin 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided about this. Let me return to it. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've given prolonged thought to this serious issue. Davis book deserves prominence - the number of RS that refer to it is part of the evidence for that. It's a serious attempt to do something usually considered impossible, which is objectively comparing apples and pears. Usually, lists of greatest sportsmen are obfuscated by cultural issues (I've seen a number of American lists massively dominated by baseball, American football and basketball, which is unsurprising) or popularity (Ivan Lendl's achievements are usually underplayed in consideration of tennis, not that he'd be in this kind of class even if popular). Further, the fact that the book is not about Bradman is actually to give it greater weight as a source. However, I thought it wise to find additional RS to discuss the claim and I thought TIME a useful one. Interestingly, TIME also refers to Davis's analysis - although I cut that from the extract I've added. --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two mentions of a triple hundred against Moss Vale. From the contexts they seem to refer to the same innings.
'Thanks. I'll fix this. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between these two seasons, Bradman seriously contemplated playing professional cricket in England with the Lancashire League club Accrington, a move that according to the rules of the day, would have ended his Test career. - is this true ? Learie Constantine played for Nelson between 1929 & 1937 and still played in the 1933 series in England and several Tests in between. Tintin 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the policy of the Australian board was that players who went to play in English domestic cricket would not be considered. Going to play for Lancashire I think ended Ted Macdonald's Test career in the 1920s, and there was a number of players on the fringe of the Australian team post WW2 who weren't considered after they went to England (I think that Tribe and Dooland were among them). JH (talk page) 17:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified with an additional citation in the text to RS that specifically and clearly explains it would indeed have ended his Test career. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments abbreviated and x-posted from my talk page

NB I have abbreviated some of this, to keep it workmanlike. It's there in full on my talk page. --Dweller (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've looked at the lead. Lots of work required. Needs collaboration by others throughout. Thus far, your hagiography is definitely a problem.
    • Hi Tony. Sorry it's taken so long to get to grips with your comments. The article's had several copyedits from different authors. I think that all the fixing has roughened it up a bit more again, so perhaps I'll solicit another after PR and before going to FAC. Hagiography is, as you know, my greatest concern with the article and I have a weather-eye open for it. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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".
    • Good spot. It's an ambiguity. I didn't mean "amongst cricket lovers" but "all over the world" (ie not just among Australians, against which it is set in the sentence). I'll rephrase. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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?)
    • I'll look into this. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On reflection, this is ambiguous. Bradman wasn't excessively attacking as a batsman and the context seems to be talking about his batting. As a captain and administrator, the comment would be fair. I'll revise. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not clear whether that bit of the article is about his batting, his captaincy, or both. As a captain, I think he was primarily committed to winning. As a batsman, he rarely hit the ball in the air, but because he was so good he could score quickly without taking risks. I would be inclined to remove that bit of the article, or to change it to say something similar to what I've said here. JH (talk page) 17:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "within" --> "in"
  • "even as he became reclusive"—"after"?
  • Puke: Howard. Who on earth cares what he thinks? And
    • Strongly disagree. See other responses below, but I think the then Australian PM's opinion of the "greatest living Australian" is absolutely relevant and a valuable insight into Bradman's significance to Australians way transcending the realm of sport. In fact, I can't think of a more appropriate person than a PM to be making such a comment. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "living Australian" appears twice at the end.TONY (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 much 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)[reply]
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Is_this_POV:_Bradman_is_.22generally_acknowledged_as_the_greatest_batsman_of_all_time.22.3F where I sadly have to discount this creative suggestion for dealing with the POV problem. --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]