Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arthur Morris

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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

A member of the one Bradman's Invincibles, regarded as one of Australia's best ever left hand batsmen and openers. First step towards WP:FT I think.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A lot of work has obviously gone into this article, and it has lots of great information. (He appears to be an important figure – although I know nothing about cricket – so well done.) However, the writing is in need of some significant copy editing. Examples:

Was this article peer reviewed? It would benefit greatly from that, and from work by someone at the League of Copy Editors, and I don't think it's in FA range right now. Good luck with it! – Scartol · Talk 03:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have gotten a copyedit from the famous Andplus (talk · contribs). I also have fixed the other specific points. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I shouldn't have reviewed this article. I know nothing about cricket, and I expect there are Australian English variants that are giving me problems. In light of all the support votes below, I feel like a jerk for saying that I still don't think this is in the FA range.

The copyedit work has improved things, but (for example) I don't understand why the "Style" section comes first. "Early years" is one very long and (to me) disorganized paragraph. I'm unclear on why the Morris-drive image is hard-coded to 300px. Statements like "opponents spoke of his imposing appearance and his apparent air of complete composure at the crease" are unsourced. And so on.

I'm really not trying to be obstinate or obnoxious. Really! I just feel like there are still too many medium-scale things that need repairing, and I generally don't think FAC is the place for such matters. Good luck, though, and thanks to Blnguyen for talk-page-ing me. (I did indeed forget to Watch this page.) – Scartol • Tok 12:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the style to the end. It's not a big deal, since he was not known primarily for his stylishness, it doesn't hurt to have it lower down. I divided the early years into paragraphs. I've shrunk the drive image so that it is smaller and similar to the others but I have always tinkered with whatever size seems to go well. If there is a regulation about uniform px then do tell me. As for the sourcing, everything is sources, but sometimes one source covers most of the paragraph, so I just put the source at the end of whatver info it referemces. If you are concerned about anything, then just {{cn}} it and I will stick a ref from the bottom of the paragraph to wherever you want it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I still feel like there are copyedit issues that need resolving, but I also feel like I'm being an obstinate jerkhead by opposing, and my objections are, I suppose, not enough to get in the way of FA. So I'll both support and urge another round of copyediting. (Maybe at the LoCE?) For example, the phrase: "His family moved when he was five to Dungog…" would be much easier to read as: "When he was five, his family moved to Dungog…". Also: "He was chosen to make his debut, aged 18, for New South Wales…" This makes it sound as though his debut was aged 18. Et cetera. – Scartol • Tok 13:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support following the copyedit. Really this is a great article. A few really, really minor things/suggestions:
  • The first paragraph of the lead is very "He"/"His"-heavy, and this is compunded by shortish sentences (not a problem by itself). Maybe change the odd one to "Miller"?
  • "Morris developed as a batsman during his teens and became the first player in the world to score two centuries in his first-class debut" - maybe tack on a year for historical perspective (I understand the lack of specifics for the lead, but it needs some precision).
  • Link Australian Army in the lead?
  • I don't think the phrase "a fixture of the team" is fantastic given the context. Thoughts?
  • Could the second paragraph of the lead be split up into two, or is it fine as it is?
  • Link South Africa in the lead for consistency through England.
  • Have we got an article explaining what a cricket average is? Might not be a bad link for the lead if we do.
  • "Despite standing only five feet nine inches (1.75 m)" — the topic is Australian, so shouldn't metric be used first?
  • Link hoodoo, I think, as well as maybe pessamist.

However, these are all minor. I confess I still need to go through the rest of this article with a fine-toothed comb as I did above, but on the most part it is fantastic (having read it generally both before and after the copyedit). It is most certainly some of Wikipedia's best work. Cheers, Daniel 07:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WRT to the he/his, they seem to alternate... I tweaked the others except for the height, since imperial was std in those days and is still widely used for height in the colloquial sense. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that's fine. My support still stands, obviously. If I get a chance I'll see what I can suggest with the rest, but regardless I think this is FA quality. Daniel 07:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support per the stuff below being fixed - I saw nothing else that needed attention having read the rest of the article. Cheers, Daniel 05:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support most, if not all of my comments now dealt with. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a good article with a lot of work put in. I took the liberty of going through and doing a copy edit, I hope that’s OK. Mainly, I edited a lot of passive language and corrected a couple of facts, and added that the press called him Bedser’s Bunny in describing his struggles against Bedser and that his 1st wife died from breast cancer. I have a few thoughts: the paras are too long and the text could benefit from some more headings (or sub headings); the phrase, “he ended the series with xxx runs at xx.xx” is repeated many times; Perry is cited many times, therefore we keep seeing Morris through Bradman’s eyes, what about other opinions?; the pic of Hassett says he was Morris’ regular partner, but this only happened on the 53 tour; Morris was an opener, what about his partnerships with other openers, in particular his union with Barnes?

A mistake by me. I rmved the thing about Hassett being an opener. I have found a pic of Barnes and Morris together in a book. Unfortunately the library does not allow loans, and I currently do not have a camera. (I usually take photos of the photos in the books in that library when needed). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have dug up another book and put in quotes from Benaud, Tyson, Arlott and other opinions. I added the info about Barnes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of debatable points: (a) the article says he was Bradman’s successor as Australia’s best bat, yet Harvey’s article says the same (Harvey has a better claim to this, particularly on figures and longevity) (b) too much detail in the section on the 48 tour (c) the claim that he is best remembered as a member of the invincibles.

The article says that Morris inherited the "leading batsman" but definitely, over time, Harvey kept on going while Morris waned after the RSA tour. But at the time of retirement, people looked to Morris as the #1 batsman since he was the topscorer on the Ashes tour and during the Ashes, Harvey only played in two Tests and wasnt yet a permanent fixture. If you can reword it so that the immediacy of the statement to 49-50 is more apparent, then that would be good. The part on the detail in 1948 is there because I looked at the bios of him and they do tend to cover 1948 in twice as much detail as the other tours. Point 3, I think this is obvious, although it wasn't the only thing he did. Obviously people remember him as a great batsman, but this was about his best remembered performance. I have moved the statement that he is regarded as one of Australia's best lefties to the very front....That way people know that he is best known for being a great batsman....then I note that his best known performance was the 1948 tour. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to reword the lead so that it says that Morris was burdened with the expectation of being the #1 bat instead of actualy being teh #1 bat since Harvey superceded him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I got confused when I got to the section on the 51-52 series where the series is covered, and then goes back to Morris captaining the side in the 3rd Test, but says it was the 4th. The circumstance is not well described. Originally, Barnes was selected in the 12 for the 3rd game, but this was vetoed by the Board under their secretive “ exclusion on grounds other than cricket performance” rule. Bradman and the other selectors delayed naming the player to replace Barnes because they didn’t want to take the rap. The team arrived in Adelaide (with the selectors) and Hassett pulled out at the very last moment, but had to act as 12th man as the Board couldn't be convened in time to approve a replacement. Phanto282 (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the captaincy thing against WI. It was indeed Third Test. I didn't include the Barnes incident because reading it seems that the political selection was before they got to Adelaide. The Hassett thing appeared to be separate, and when he got injured, the selectors chose Ridings but the board couldn't be convened for the official approval in time, so Morris was stuck with five bowlers instead of a replacement batsman for Hassett. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I have done some more research & found that the vote by the Board over the captaincy for the 49-50 RSA tour was Hassett 7, Morris 6: pretty close. This probably affected the decision to replace him as NSW captain, as the NSWCA would be pushing for their man as Australian captain and figured Miller was a better chance. Also, I think Morris' partnership with Barnes should be mentioned as it was significant in 48, and it seems Morris was not the same when partnered with other players - that is the relevance of the Barnes omission in 51-52 when there was an opportunity to reunite the two. It is also relevant in that Morris was left "holding the can" with an unbalanced team due to politics within the game between the selectors and the Board; they got caught out when Hassett withdrew at an unexpectedly late stage. His 206 in 50-51 is significant in that he overcame his "Bedser complex" with help from Hassett, who shielded him from Bedser early in his innings until he got his footwork sorted out. IMO, if you replace some of the stats with these anecdotes(I don't think that it's necessary to list his runs and ave for every series - suggest putting them in a table at the bottom of the article, nor is it necessary to list Australia taking the lead etc., just give the series result), this will overcome the next reviewer's objection to the article being "dry and technical". Phanto282 (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. thanks for the info. I have included it. I have also found some other interesting events in his cricketing career that are not shown in raw stats and have incorporated them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object I see a few issues to correct, other than those cited previously. A general problem which the article suffers from is dry, technical or otherwise not "engaging" prose. Writing of a "professional standard" should be able to hook readers who are not familiar with cricket, and the writing was often a chore to read (even for someone - like myself - who is casually familiar with the sport). Conclusively, I find the article to presently be of a basic sufficiency, but certainly not part of "the best of Wikipedia".
  • Both Early years and Style need paragraphs. One huge block of text is not good prose. The last paragraph of the lead could also be broken into two.
  • There are uncited direct quotations throughout (I'm assuming that the article is using British English, in which case irony quotations should always be single ones, doubles are only for quoting a person): "Bedser's Bunny" in Style, "moderately skilled" in Early years, in the 3rd paragraph of Later career. Having quotes without direct cites doesn't even pass GA standards, much less FA.
  • There is a single-sentence paragraph in Decline.

In general, it would be preferable for there to be more than three published general references. The article also relies relatively heavily on one source (The A-Z of Australian cricketers). More variance in sourcing is desirable. VanTucky ^Talk 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC) All issues resolved adequately. So support. VanTucky ^talk 04:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with the dot points, I think I have gotten to these, apart from my dour writing style. The ones by TRM were ticked off at User talk:Andplus. I'm not sure about the irony quotations. I'll look for a 2nd opinion. In terms of the refs, it can be misleading actually. I did the initial job on the article with the AZ profile, back in April, this yielded only about 4-5k of prose despite it being referenced 8-9? times. The Perry and Pollard books which are there have been used much more often, and I have just added another two. Of the 85-90 inline cites atm, only 8-9 are AZ. There are five books listed, as well as the AZ profile and the Cricinfo database. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a more conscious check of my cricket books and other Commonwealth English books and found that they used the same type of quotes for irony quotations and actual speech quoting. Some used single some used double, but all used the same for both. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have found some more general and anecdotal information about Morris beyond the stats and cold numbers, that hopefully humanise him some more. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It looks like the concerns have been addressed. I have a minimal knowledge of cricket but it held interest and read well, sufficient images and refs. Good job Blnguyen and Andplus.--Sandahl 04:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Full support great work. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It held my interest the whole way through. Well done guys. —Moondyne 06:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, it's apparent that the concerns of others have been adequately addressed, and the article looks as good as any article that Blnguyen can whip up :) Great work. Spebi 06:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment placeholder... pending completion of copyedit (I've just started) and resolution of some hidden comments. But NB it's another brilliant bit of work off the Blnguyen production line. It may be early next week before I can complete copyedit, so if Raul wants to promote before then on the basis of all the supports above, I have no objection, hence no oppose. If you catch my drift. --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.