Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Crawford (cricketer)/archive1

Jack Crawford (cricketer)[edit]

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 I am hoping to take it to FAC fairly soon. Crawford was an exceptionally promising young cricketer in the early 20th century whose career ended under a cloud after a dispute with his club president over including some professional cricketers in the Surrey team. Any suggestions on prose and accessibility to non-cricketers would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Is it accurate to say in the first paragraph that the disagreement with Surrey "curtailed" (i.e. cut short) his career, since he thereafter played several seasons in Australia and, as you say, occasionally played for Surrey after the First World War? Rewording necessary, I think – but as the disagreement and its consequences is noted in the third pararaph of the lead, your best option in the first paragraph might be to end the sentence at "an unusually early age".
Comma after "schoolboy" in second paragraph
It is usual, I believe, to refer to the Marylebone Cricket Club".
The word "However" is not necessary at the beginning of the third paragraph. I would also remove "ongoing"

All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and career

Can hr really be said to have "begun his career" with his schoolboy feats at St Winifred's? Rather, these youthful achievements anticipated his career, I'd say
The quote from Benny Green needs a bit of amplification. Simply saying that he "caused chaos" could be read as meaning that Crawford was disruptive or disorganised.
Third paragraph: it is a little odd, after reading that Crawford was "probably the best ever schoolboy cricketer." to read at the beginning of this paragraph that he "steadily improved" his cricket. Also, in this paragraph the citations here look odd, with most of the statistical information looking unreferenced.
Give the year that Crawford was first chosen for Surrey
"In total, Crawford took 44 wickets..." etc. Make it clear that "in total" refers to the seasom (and clarify which season".

All these done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the fifth paragraph of this section I am thinking there is too much information on Crawford's school exploits. We don't this level of detail to illustrate that he was exceptionally talented.

You are probably right, but I'll need to think how best to do this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tour to South Africa

This section to some extent typifies a weakness in this article, in that it consists of very little beyond performance statistics. I don't know the literature, but I would have thought at least one source would have commented on a player being picked for a major MCC tour straight from school, with only a handful of first-class matches behind him, and then going directly into the Test side. That seems a more remarkable fact than Crawford's individual match figures. Apart from the bland "played two good innings" (which doesn't deserve quotes), is there any information on how Crawford played the deadly googly bowlers? Or how his relative successes with bat and ball compared with other performances?

Agreed; I'm not sure that much exists, but I'll see what I can find. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey cricketer

Does the "six fifties" include the 148 previously mentioned?
Although you have pipe-linked "Gentlemen against the players", I would alter the text slightly, to: "...the representative Gentlemen versus Players matches..."
"noted" and "noting" in close proximity
"only ... only" in same sentence

All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tour to Australia

Give the opponebts in the first and second first-class matches of the tour
Crawford's career Test figures are somewhat tangled with his figures for this particular tour. It would be better to reorganise the information.
THe last paragraph of the section might be better placed as an intro to the next section, as it has nothing to do with the tour.

All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

"to captain the team" occurs twice in quick successsion (followed by "captained the team")

Later career

"Having settled his disagreement with Surrey..." How? Did he apologise? Did the committee withdraw (evidently not, from the last line of the article)? Or, more likely, was it just a case of a new committee with a different view? More information needed.

Not known and maybe impossible to find out, but I shall do a little more digging. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"After appearing for the Gentlemen against the Players, he returned to play for Surrey, scoring 144 not out against the Australian Imperial Forces, later described by Wisden as the innings of his life." Too many sub-clauses, and slightly dodgy grammar. Try: "After appearing for the Gentlemen against the Players, he returned to play for Surrey against the Australian Imperial Forces. He scored 144 not out, which was later described by Wisden as the innings of his life".

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good effort, bringing to light a cricketer I had never heard of, with quite a story behind him. As I am not watching individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you want to raise issues arising froim this review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]