Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bill Ponsford/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 SandyGeorgia 23:01, 20 June 2009 [1].

---

Bill Ponsford

Nominator(s): Mattinbgn\^talk 10:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Bill Ponsford/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the featured article criteria. The article is based on a well-researched biography of Ponsford but draws from a wide range of complementary sources. As well as comprehensive coverage of Ponsford's cricket career, the article covers part of Ponsford's life not often covered in other articles etc.; namely that he was a leading baseball player in his time in Australia. Mattinbgn\^talk 10:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support
  • I think a brief copy edit might be useful, I have worked through the lead and hopefully you agree with my changes. I shall scan through for any other issues. There are a lot of short sentences which could be expanded with commas and so on.

• • Mostly agree with your changes, certainly a net positive for the article. I made one change back; I kept the baseball sentence separate as it is a separate concept and your change made it appear that his baseball career followed his cricket career when in fact, his time in the two sports was interwoven. Personally, for the sake of 38 balls I would have left his bowling style blank; I don't think 38 balls is a big enough sample to make a judgement on style but happy to see it kept there for the sake of completeness.

• Yes, but I'm sure he bowled many deliveries in club cricket and other games, I would certainly include it even if in first-class cricket he only bowled 38 balls - after all, it is still a fact. SGGH ^ping! 15:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Is there a WP:MOS stating that MBE's need to be sub-texted?

• • Not that I am aware of—but I am not aware of anything saying that they shouldn't be. I saw it elsewhere and like the way it looked; cleaner, to my eyes anyway. I am not wedded to it and if it is unacceptable I am happy to change it.

• It's fine as far as I am concerned. SGGH ^ping! 15:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm not quite sure about the "and more records" part of the "Test debut" sub-heading, it just sounds a tiny bit like "he was so amazing at cricket he broke so many records and here are even more records" but it is probably just me being over-sensitive!

• • Well he was "so amazing at cricket he broke so may records"! I find titles difficult to write, I wanted to get across the theme of the section, which covered his Test debut and his record breaking series of innings. I understand NPOV is important but if something is remarkable, I don't think there is any harm in saying so, provided it is factual and not over-the-top

• • "Ponsford scored 352 runs, 334 of them a single day" do we know how many balls it was scored off? If so, could it be added. Given that much came in just one day, it would be interesting.

• • I can't find any record stating the deliveries faced in that innings. CricketArchive is normally pretty good for that sort of thing but no luck this time. I agree, it would be fascinating.

• • The Bodyline article alternates bodyline with bodyline, do we know which wp:mos refers?

• • WP:CRIC#STYLE does not provide any guidance. I don't recall italicising this word, I think this change was made by an earlier reviewer. As an "invented" word, I don't think it is inappropriate to italicise the first mention of the word in this article but if others disagree I am willing to change.

• • "In only his third first-class match, Ponsford broke the world record for an individual innings at that level, scoring 429 runs and batting for nearly eight hours" is it possible to discover what his average was after those first three matches? Would be interesting here.

• • He had scored 616 runs from 4 innings with no not-outs for an average of 154.00, which is very high but not remarkably so. I calculated this average from first principles and given that some of the self-generated statistics in other cricket FACs have been challenged as OR I am reluctant to add it.

• • "The medallion came with an honorary membership of the club, and Ponsford was an enthusiastic trainer, running from school to the nearby Brunswick Street Oval in the Edinburgh Gardens to practise in the nets." Do you mean that as a member of the club he was an enthusiastic trainer (in which cause, "was" should perhaps be "became")? Or are they unrelated comments in the same sentence?

• • Changed as per your (correct) inference and suggestion

• • "Ponsford had a much better season—especially in the Test matches—than four years previously. [...] In helping his captain to wear down England's bowling he accomplished great work and, even if he was seldom really attractive to watch, there could be no question about his skill and how difficult he was to get out."[53]" I don't think you need to insert your own [ ] as you are using the ... to signify that these two lines don't actually follow on in the text, rather than inserting [a] word to supply clarification or grammatical sense.

• • I have always used [...] where the ellipses follow a full stop to avoid confusion. If this is wrong I am of course willing to change.

• • • There's another one of these in the baseball section.

• • • See above

All I can think of at the moment. Good stuff, SGGH ^ping! 14:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and suggestions. They have certainly improved the article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Once others have brought up anything further, I shall return and review my comment to a "support" or "oppose". SGGH ^ping! 15:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I did some more prose massaging, and I don't think there are any deal-breakers as such left. It is clearly comprehensive and fulfils other FA criteria. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the improvements and the review. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments – These are for about half the article. I'll try to come back for the rest of the article within the next two or three days.
• In the lead, should bodyline be capitalized? I've always seen it that way in other cricket articles.

• I personally would not capitalise it, and WP:CRIC#STYLE does not provide any guidance one way or the other but Donald Bradman, pretty much the "gold standard" for cricket biographies does capitalise the term. Now in capitals.

• Early life: "Ponsford won the batting and bowling average in 1913, 1914 and 1915 for his school team...". Is "won the batting and bowling average" an often-used phrase in cricket?

• It is at minor club level (not so much at professional level), where it often comes with an award or trophy. It is a little confusing so reworded.

• Cricket career: "before surpassing former England captain Archie MacLaren's world record 424." Add "of" before the number?

• Yes, omitting the "of" is a little "newspaperish". Now added.

• "whose 305* runs was the previous highest score against Tasmania." Is there a reason the asterisk is here? Is it something related to cricket scoring.

• It is standard cricket notation for "not out" From the article: A batsman's score is often appended with an asterisk to indicate that he was not out; for example, '10*' is read "10 not out". The difference between 305 and 305* is generally felt to be significant by cricket fans. I could spell the term out or leave it out (or link the asterisk?), yours and others thoughts are welcome.

• "the experienced Collins was confident enough to take the strike for most of Tate's bowling and Ponsford went on to make a century (110) on Test debut." "his" before "Test debut"?

• Again, newpaperish. Now added.

• "illness interrupted his tour with tonsillitis causing him to miss three weeks of cricket in June...". This is one of those somewhat awkward sentence structures that I see a lot of here. An easy fix is, "when tonsillitis caused him to miss three weeks of cricket in June...".

• Much better wording. I assume that you have spotted others in this article; is there any others you can point out or some general advice you can give?

• Actually, I don't remember any after this one. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• "In December 1927, he improved on his own first-class cricket world record score, hitting 437 against Queensland". Make the comma immediately following this a semi-colon. It would make the sentence read much better.

• You are correct, now done

• "In a wet English summer, Australia won the series two Tests to one, recovering the Ashes. Why are there italics here?

• I don't recall adding them, now removed and the definite article preceding has been capitalised per WP:CRIC#STYLE

• "Ponsford played a part in Bradman's success with Wisden stating". Another of these awkward "with" connectors. Maybe try a semi-colon here?

• Done, I will take a run through the article with a view to improving on the "with" and "after" etc. connections

• "After Ponsford returned to the dressing room after his dismissal". Two "after"s here. Perhaps change the second one to "following". Giants2008 (17-14) 00:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reworded, but a little differently from your suggestion. Thanks for taking the time to review and your suggestions. They have certainly improved the article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Waited a little longer to re-review it because of Brian's exhaustive commentary. The article is decidedly sharper than when I originally reviewed it.

• Personal life: "On his return from England in 1926, the bank advised him that they might not tolerate so much leave for cricket in future." Should it be "in the future"?

• I think either are acceptable in AusEng but "the" is now added.

• "However, in the event recently retired Test cricketer Ian Johnson was appointed." Reads like something is missing from the sentence. What is this supposed to be referring to?

• Added "to the position" which is the Secretary position referred to in the previous sentence

• I was wondering what "in the event" means. What event? Am I not reading this correctly? Giants2008 (17-14) 14:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Baseball: Space before reference 99 to remove.

• done, thanks

• Legacy and statistical analysis: "Ponsford was not satisfied with merely making centuries, he strove to score 200 and more." Change the comma to a semi-colon?

• I would agree, some others may not. Nevertheless, now done

• Grammar: "Apart from Brian Lara, Ponsford is only man...".

• Errrrk! Now fixed, thanks

• "His 437 against Queensland is ,as at 2009". Move comma, and possibly change "at" to "of"?

• The comma is fixed but "at" has been kept. It reads better to me that way, although I happy to receive suggestions from others.

• "Ponsford and his long-time partner, Woodfull were known as...". Comma after Woodfull. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed and moved. Thanks for taking such a close look at the article for me. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 06:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support and will continue copyediting. I think that more background to the ADelaide Bodyline Test should be given, re near-riot, and the threat to cancel the match, to show how bad it is. Also, is 34 young? I know Macartney/Tiger/Grimmett played until they were 40, but I thought the average retirement in those days was a bit younger. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review and the copy-editing. The Adelaide Test actually is a good candidate for its own article (say Third Test, 1932–33 Ashes series) with all the drama on and off the field. I am conscious, however, that the article is about Ponsford and I am a little loathe to delve too deeply into events where his role was a minor one. I do mention that the Test was controversial and I mention Oldfield being hit but perhaps I can add a sentence about Woodfull and Warner in the dressing room. As for 34 being young, I guess not, but his retirement was a surprise to everyone and was certainly widely considered premature. I will consider rewording. Thanks once again for your help and advice. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I had another think. Bardsley, V Richardson, Woodfull, Collins, Ryder, etc. They did seem to retire really old then. I guess they retired young from 1945-70. Other things though

Thanks for the changes in the Bodyline section

• What happened in 1933/34 domestic? Did Ponny have a strong season to regain his Test spot after Bodyline?

• '606 runs at an average of 50.50 including one century. Not too shabby but nothing exceptional. If I had to speculate, I would say reputation and past performance got him selected. Is it worth a sentence?

• Why did he miss a Test against RSA?

• I would assume lack of form, but I can't find anything to say that was the case. The Wisden archive is no help, the bio doesn't even acknowledge the series's existence. Off line sources are drawing a blank too. Certainly he had a sub-par season, by his standards.

• I think a comment or two explaining the magnitude of VIC v NSW is needed. In Cricket the Australian Way by Pollard, in Mailey's chapter he talks about the intense rivalry at the time, pseudo-Test almost, and mentions Ponsford's intensity in these matches, who may have been very prolific in those matches, I don't know about the ones outside the 1107 game. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Added a quote from Mailey about Ponsford v. NSW. Best I could find but I thinks gets the point across. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• What happened in 29-30? He must have done something otherwise he wouldn't have been selected for England. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• 729 runs at 45.56. Again, nothing spectacular, but solid enough to earn selection I guess. No source I can find ties his selection to his run scoring that season. It was however, the fourth highest aggregate for the season.

Might as well put in something for the missing seasons I think instead of leaving a black hole. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Added sentences on both. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• OpposeComment: Much more work required on the prose, to bring it to FA standard. In the lead alone I found the following:-
  • "...he formed part of a successful and long-lived partnership opening the batting for Victoria and Australia with his friend Bill Woodfull." The wording is clumsy. It has to be made clear that Ponsford was part of two separate, distinct pairings with Woodfull, one at state level, the other at Test level. Also I think the use of the word "partnership" might be confusing in the cricketing context. And, as presently written, it sounds as though Woodfull was primarily Ponsford's "friend" rather than his state and international captain.

• • I am not sure I follow what you are saying here at all. The wording may be clumsy but it does clearly state "Victoria and Australia" (i.e. two separate and distinct teams; they are even wikilinked). The pair were lifelong friends (and their families are now interwoven through intermarriage, but that is outside the scope of the article). I am unsure why Woodfull being Ponsford's captain for part (but not all) of their time together in the Vic. and Aust. team is any more relevant in the context of the sentence.
    • The point is that the pairings of Ponsford and Woodfull at state and at national level had distinctly different histories. I haven't looked at the details of their joint state careers, but I believe they opened together for a good few seasons. At Test level, of Ponsford's 29 matches and Woodfull's 35, they played in 24 together, and opened on just 12 occasions, never for an entire Test series. In other words, their Test pairing was quite sporadic. While I don't expect you to include all this information in your opening paragraph, I think the impression of a single, long-lived partnership at state and Test level needs correcting. I prefer the word "pairing" to "partnership", because in cricket the latter can refer to something else, e.g. an opening partnership of x runs, etc. And I still think you should find a way of introducing Woodful other than as Ponsford's friend. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • You need to specify that he twice broke the record for the highest individual score in first class cricket.

• • Added, but seems redundant to me. An individual could hardly break a team record.

• I have made a slight tweak to show that he is the only person to break the record twice (as per my reading). How does it stand with you? SGGH ^ping! 06:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fine, now Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The fact about Ponsford and Lara being the only players with two 400+ scores is a separate matter from the record-breaking score, and shouldn't be in the same sentence.
  • "cut shot" needs a link

• • The only instance of cut in the lead section is already linked (to List of cricket terms#C). Is there somewhere else you mean?
    • No, you are right. Sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Re baseball, you should say Ponsford also represented his state and country... etc

• • It seems "also" has now been added but I am not sure it adds much.
    • It's useful when you are adding a subsidiary skill to someone's main achievement, e.g. Bradman was also a scratch golfer, and it improves the prose flow (provided it's not overused). Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Apart from these lead issues, a few sample points from further down:
  • He had "the highest batting and bowling average". Er... highest bowling average? Was he a dreadful bowler, then?

• • Thanks for picking that up, that was an error introduced by myself when rewording the sentence in response to an earlier comment. Now fixed (Thanks to SGGH)

• • "Returning to Australia, Ponsford continued to make large scores" - not good writing, needs rewording along the lines "In the season following his return to Australia, Ponsford continued..." etc

• • Yes, much better wording. Thanks.

• • "continued where he had left off" is a bit vague and informal for an encyclopedia, perhaps.
• The above is not an exhaustive list of prose that needs attention. With appropriate further work, the article has the makings of featured class, but it does not at present meet the requirements of criterion 1(a). Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to review. I will respond to those remaining shortly -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• More (mainly) prose issues: I have begun to read through the article more carefully, and have have made a number of punctuation and typo fixes in the text. I also picked up numerous prose issues from the first two substantive sections, which is as far as I've got as yet:-
• Early life
  • "gold rush" should be two words

• • Someone has fixed this for me. It certainly should be two words and it is now

• • "Growing up on Newry St in Fitzroy North, Ponsford attended the nearby Alfred Crescent School, which stood beside the Edinburgh Gardens." I believe a better construction would be: "Ponsford grew up on Newry St in Fitzroy North, and attended the nearby Alfred Crescent School, which stood beside the Edinburgh Gardens."

• • Much better wording, thanks. I have an unfortunate tendency to start sentences with "Running", "Growing", "Hitting" etc.

• • Second paragraph - two successive sentences start with "Ponsford..." The second could be "He..."

• • I was concerned that the pronoun would be confusing here with the reference to Best in the previous sentence. However it has been reworded.

• • It would be better to say, simply, that he had "the best batting and bowling averages...", rather than "the highest batting and the lowest bowling average". Not only would this save words, it would clarify his achievement for the benefit of non-cricketing readers.

• • Agreed

• • The word "trainer" is generally used to describe someone who "trains" people, rather than someone who does training. This could be resolved by saying: "...Ponsford trained enthusiastically, running to school..." etc

• • Agreed, much better

• Early record-breaking
  • The word "resultant" in the first sentence is superfluous, and doesn't sit well with "As a result...", which starts the next sentence.

fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Not sure about "happened to be". A straightforward "was" would do.

fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "By the 1918–19 season, Ponsford would top the club batting averages with an average of 33." Fair enough, but what about 1917-18? Presumably he did nothing spectacular, but maybe improved a little? It would help the narrative if you could say something like: "After a steady improvement in 1917-18, in the 1918-19 season Ponsford topped the club batting averages with an average of 33. That season he also topped the bowling averages..." etc.

• • I agree that some idea of his progression would be desireable, however the source does not mention it his performance in 1917-18 at all. The club records are not kept online anywhere that I can find.
    • Would it be possible to begin the sentence: "His improvement was such that, in 1918–19, Ponsford topped..." etc. That gives an idea of progression. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "...supposedly at the expense of Armstrong." Is there any doubt about it?

• • I thought there was, but a re-read of the source is pretty definite about it "Bill took the place in the team of Warwick Armstrong ..." "supposed" has been removed.

• • "...despite batting at number eight" makes sense to cricket-wise people, but not to others. You could help them by saying "low in the order, at number eight."

• • The concept of "batting order" is a difficult for even baseball fans to understand. Added your suggested wording

• • Surely, the world record should have a precise date, rather than just "the following season"?

• • Date added for the match. Ponsford began his innings on 3 Feb, 4 Feb was a rest day and he passed the record on 5 Feb.

• • Again, only the cricket-wise will know that 305* means 305 not out. (I assume that there is a link available to explain "not out")
  • "...some intrigue in the popular press..." Intrigue? are you sure this is the best word - it implies plotting?

fixed YellowMonkey

(cricket calendar poll!) 02:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

• • "Selected for his first Sheffield Shield match against South Australia, Ponsford—still batting down the order—made 108." Again, a date is necessary (you don't even give the season, here). Also, comma required after "Shield match"? And could you say "batting down the order, at number x"?

• • Done -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I will continue as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

These are my final comments on the prose. Most are pretty minor, and all are easily fixable:-

• Test debut and more records
  • "It was in the 1924–25 season that Ponsford broke into international cricket." Verbose, could be "Ponsford broke into international cricket in the 1924–25 season"

• • Now addressed

• • More superfluous wording; "he was called into the team for the first Test against England..." Why not "he was selected for the first Test against England"?

• • Now addressed

• • Tate's bowling should only be described as "brilliant" within a specific quotation, otherwise it reads as POV

• The source uses the term "baffling". I have used this in inverted commas. Let me know if this is unacceptable. A little off-topic, I find it interesting that we are a lot less strict about POV verbs like "struggled" than we are about POV adjectives like "brilliant".

• I think the point is that there are degrees of "struggle", whereas "brilliant" is absolute. You can have a bit of a struggle; you can't be a bit briliant." Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I think the link on "strike" should be made specific to "farm the strike"

• • Agreed, the entire term is now linked to List of cricket terms#F

• • "He added 128..." - added to what? I presume you mean he scored 128.

• • Yep, that is puzzling. Fixed.

• • I think the idiom is "chosen for" rather than "chosen in"

• • "Chosen in" must be an Australianism, now changed.

• • "thirty-six" requires a hyphen (or write it as 36)

• • Really? How ugly! Nevertheless WP:MOSNUM agrees so now changed

• • Again, an asterisk is used to signify a not-out innings

• • I will deal with these as a group/

• • "In his next match, against New South Wales, Ponsford again rewrote the record books. Ponsford scored 352 runs, 334 of them in a single day, and helped Victoria to an innings total of 1,107, which remains the highest team total in first-class cricket, breaking Victoria's own record set four years earlier." Can you clarify the actual record that Ponsford individually claimed? As previously, if this was a world record, I think the dates should be given.

• • As far as I can tell, he did not break an individual record of any consequence in that innings. This sentence must obviously be misleading if an individual record can be read into it. Will think about better wording.

• • "In a remarkable season..." POV again

• • And another adjective is brutally murdered removed ... :-)

• • "he scored 452 at an average of 56.50, second only to his opening partner Bill Woodfull." Second in aggregate, or average, or both?

• • Both, now added

• Struggles and success
  • The dreaded asterisk again

• • To be dealt with as a group

• • "However, he was left to rue some ill-chosen words in the Test series." Awkward phrasing, but also carries a strong whiff of editorial opinion/journalistic comment. More neutral, encyclopedic phrasing would be: "Before the Test series started, Ponsford had declared..." etc

• • Reworded per your suggestion, but I am concerned that we have lost some of the contrast between Ponsford's words, i.e. "not fast" with the subsequent happenings, i.e. dismissed cheaply and a broken hand.

• • "standout" as adjective or noun is one word. You could say "The outstanding performer..."

• • Much better, thanks

• • "In a change..." is redundant wording

• • Yep, removed.

• • "Ponsford and Jackson started the summer well, their 172 run partnership in the second innings took Australia to a 10 wicket victory." Ungrammatical. In the second innings of what? Do you mean: "Ponsford and Jackson started the Test series well, their 172 run partnership in the second innings taking Australia to a 10-wicket victory in the first Test."?

• • Reworded per your suggestion. A query; do you think a hyphen is necessary in "10-wicket victory"? It does not seem right to me

• • "Ponsford was reunited with Woodfull for the remaining Tests..." Clarify was reunited with Woodfull as his opening partner for the remaining Tests.

• • Clarified

• Bodyline
  • Use of the adjective "intimidatory" is POV unless, again, it is within a cited quote.

• • Reworded but I am tempted to argue that even Jardine would have agreed that Bodyline was based around intimidation. Indeed that was the entire point of the tactic. The word "intimidatory" does not have any particular moral colour and to appears to be a simple statement of fact.

• • "After failing again in the fourth Test, Ponsford was again dropped." I would drop the first "again".

• • Agreed, changed

• • "While the manager of the England team, Pelham Warner, thought that Ponsford "met the fast-leg theory in plucky and able style"[70], Ponsford developed a habit of turning his back on the rising ball and, if hit, glowering at the affected bowler." This need some reorganising, as the second clause is not a natural consequence of the earlier "While" clause. I suggest: "Ponsford developed a habit of turning his back on the rising ball and, if hit, glowering at the affected bowler. While the manager of the England team, Pelham Warner, thought that Ponsford "met the fast-leg theory in plucky and able style,[70] this behaviour was criticised by the British cricket writer, R. C. Robertson-Glasgow."[71]

• • Thanks, much better wording

• Triumph and retirement
  • "The partnership was the highest ever in Test cricket and is still the highest fourth wicket partnership for Australian." Clarify that the partnership was the highest ever in Test cricket at the time. Also, "still" needs specifying: "...and as of 2009 is still..." etc. And shouldn't the last word of the sentence be "Australia"?

• • All done

• • "Again Wisden was complimentary; they said..." Wisden isn't a "they" I suggest: "Again Wisden was complimentary, saying..."

• • done

• • Another missing word: "...and the press had speculated that Ponsford succeed him as captain of Victoria" - would succeed him

• • Oops, now fixed

• • I would qualify the young as "relatively young". Also you have the age as a numeric 34 here, but written out as "thirty four" (without hyphen) in the quote which follows. Is this in accordance with the original?

• • The quote and the earlier mention are now both numeric. The source uses numerals. --

• • What is the source of Mailey's opinion?

• • The same as the following sentence. Now made crystal clear

• Personal life
  • "at the end of his five year contract" - with the newspaper? Specify.

• • Yep, the newspaper. Specified.

• • Rather than saying "Keith Murdoch himself", you need to say who Keith Murdoch was. The link article is no use here - it's dreadful.

• • The article on Murdoch is very disappointing for an Australian of his historic prominence. The source tends to assume, like I did, that people are familiar with him. There is a mention of him as Editor-in-chief earlier in the book and a ref to his son further down the page.

• • The following sentence needs attention: "In 1956, Ponsford unsuccessfully applied for the position of club secretary—effectively chief executive officer and one of the most prestigious positions in Australian cricket[90]—Test cricketer Ian Johnson was appointed after the retirement of Vernon Ransford." The rule with mdashes is that if the section within the dashes is ignored, what's left should still form a complete sentence, which is not the case here. ("In 1956, Ponsford unsuccessfully applied for the position of club secretary Test cricketer Ian Johnson was appointed after the retirement of Vernon Ransford.") I suggest that you do away with the tiresome dashes and split the sentence. Thus: "In 1956 Ponsford unsuccessfully applied for the position of club secretary, effectively its chief executive officer and one of the most prestigious positions in Australian cricket[90]. However, in the event Test cricketer Ian Johnson was appointed, following the retirement of Vernon Ransford."

• • Reworded, along much the same lines as your suggestion.

• Baseball: "By 1919"? or "In 1919"?

• Changed to "In". I guess I wanted to get across the sense that by 1919 he was good enough for selection for the Vic. team. Rereading the source, that sense is not conveyed and would be my invention.

• Legacy and statistical analysis
  • Diagram: what do the blue dots signify?

• Sorted. SGGH ^ping! 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for that!

• • In first-class cricket, Ponsford scored 13,819 runs at an average of 65.18, the fifth highest average of any player." Needs a bit more: "...as of 2009 the fifth highest complete career average of any player, worldwide."

• • Added

• • Sudden adoption of bullet points for a two-item list should be avoided.

• • I agree and would not normally do this but I am struggling with an elegant manner of listing these two records in the prose. Ideas and suggestions from anyone gratefully accepted

• • The first mention of Ray Robinson should introduce him properly: "Cricket writer Ray Robinson", not just "Robinson"

• • Hmm, how did I miss this.

• • "Perhaps the greatest honour bestowed on the Victorian batsman was the renaming of the Northern Stand of the Melbourne Cricket Ground as the "Ponsford Stand" in 1986." This reads as editorial opinion. The neutral version might be: "In 1986 the Northern Stand of the Melbourne Cricket Ground was renamed the "Ponsford Stand."

• • Done. I feel that Ponsford considered this his greatest honour and the source hints at this but never actually comes out and says it. Certainly the author of the source feels it was Ponsford's greatest honour (and I agree, even Collingwood has an MBE :-)) but that doesn't seem particularly relevant to me.

• Style and personality: The Bradman quote doesn't seem quite complete. Does it need a question mark?

• • Yes and there was a slight misquote, both now fixed. Thanks.

• On a separate matter, there could well be issues raised with images, particularly the cigarette card representation of Ponsford in the final section. But I am no image expert so I will leave that question to others.

• The cig card has been deleted, unfortunately. This is a shame as it was a good image. Alas, it appears that someone, somewhere, owns the copyright.

On the whole, the article is admirably comprehensive and will be well received by those interested in cricket history. If the prose issues can be sorted out, and image questions resolved, it will be a handsome addition to the FA canon.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now started on addressing your issues. Thanks very much for all your time and effort, I could not have had a more thorough review. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Please let me know when you feel all my points have been answered, so that I can revise my oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Has Brian been notified yet? It looks like attempts have been made to address all of his concerns. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaning to support (see updated comment below): I appreciate that much work has gone into addressing my concerns, and have struck the oppose. I have one outstanding issue: the beginning of the article remains weak. WP:LEAD says that "an article should begin with a short declarative sentence answering two questions - what or who is he subject of the article, and why is this subject notable?" The first sentence here simply says that Ponsford was an Australian cricketer; his notability is not really defined until the third and fourth sentences. I think this could be addressed by amending the opening along the following lines:

"William Harold Ponsford MBE (19 October 1900 – 6 April 1991) was an Australian cricketer, the only player to twice break the world record for the highest individual score in first-class cricket. Predominantly playing as an opening batsman, he formed a successful and long-lived partnership opening the batting for Victoria and Australia with his friend Bill Woodfull. Aside from Brian Lara,..." etc

If you can amend as above – or otherwise define his ability in the opening sentence – I will be happy to give full support to this impressive article. Brianboulton (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Amended as per your excellent suggestion (with a small change). Thanks very much for all your advice, the article is much improved as a result. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: My final concern having been addressed, I am happy to switch to full support. I hope there will be more from this stable (how about Dainty Ironmonger?) Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose due to an image concern: File:Woodfull&Ponsford.jpg: while indisputable that the photo was created in the 1930–34 period, its authorship (and hence copyright) is in question. No source is provided for verification either. As stated in the article, the Tests were played in either England or Australia. Depending on photographer and first publishing of the photo, the image would either fall under United Kingdom or Australian copyright. If Aussie, fine and dandy as it is in Aussie public domain. If UK's laws apply, however, a 70 year pma (since death of author) is necessitated, which places this photo almost certainly to be still in UK copyright. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to tell from the image alone if it was taken in Aust. or the UK. (An aside, if it were English players walking onto the field, it would have been immediately obvious from their caps, which were different at home and abroad) Phanto282, who had an ability to find the most wonderful images (like this one), found these at a time when many of us were not so punctillious about images as we are now. Unfortunately he has now left the project. Given it looks likely to be deleted fairly shortly, unless someone can identify where the match was played, I am willing to remove it. I have found (a very much inferior) replacement that was definitely taken in Australia (the players are wearing VCA caps) if this image meets WP image policy. Thanks for your help on straightening out the images on Commons. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Woodfull and Ponsford image question looks to be trending towards feeling the photograph was taken in the UK. Subsequently, I have removed the image. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Remaining images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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