Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Meckiff/archive2

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 Karanacs 18:33, 7 September 2010 [1].

Ian Meckiff[edit]

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Meckiff is a retired Australian cricketer from the 1950s and 1960s. He was a fast bowler, and there were persistent allegations that his bowling technique was illegal (throwing (cricket)) in a similar way to racewalkers having two feet off the ground, bent knees and so forth. This caused rather a diplomatic incident as in those days umpires were not from neutral countries/clubs, but were always provided by the hosts, and it was regarded as rather undiplomatic for a host to sanction a visiting player, and difficult for a host umpire to handicap his own team. So there was a lot of maneuvring of alterations to the throwing law and parochial media wars and allegations of cheating. Finally in 1963, he was brought back into the Australian team after strong form for his state side Victoria, and was immediately sanctioned by Australian umpire Col Egar in the first 5 (and only) minutes of his performance, and then he retired. This provoked death threats against the umpire and angry crowd demonstrations, as well as conspiracy allegations, as the chief selector of the Australian team Don Bradman had privately told others of his suspicions that Meckiff was illegal, but picked him in the team anyway. Soon there was a great hullabaloo in the press over whether he was guilty and whether he was a scapegoat in a "public execution" by the umpire to prove that Australia was serious about stopping illegal bowling actions. This article was kindly copyedited by Brianboulton. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

~~Ref 47: Why is the Hopps book & citations not formatted like the other books?~~

~~Ref 71: Fiddian is not defined~~

~~Ref 103: Why is the Tibballs book & citations not formatted like the other books?~~

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Given the amount of detail in this article and comment on his performances, is it necessary to go into such detail about the early matches in his career? It detracts a little from the flow in my view.

I pruned the not so important batting bits. The debut is described a bit, as are the showpiece matches: the tie against NSW and the sselection trial, which are important YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't obvious from the early career section why he made such an impression that he was picked for a semi-representative side and a representative tour. Is there anything that could be added to explain this in terms other than figures? If it doesn't exist, fine, but an average of 23 in a first season doesn't account for such an early pick usually. Selectorial desperation?

Well they decided that Lindwall was over the hill, Miller retired, Archer's knee went completely, and Crawford's wife left him and he played only one match for the season. Nothing was said explicitly in detail about every newbie, the newspapers were shorter in those days, but three of the incumbents were totally unavailable, he also did well against NSW and they were the strongest, so maybe that was weighted more YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Under some pressure": Could this be clarified? From others or himself? Because he was a controversial pick or because of the selectors' policy?

The selectors' new wave YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"but Meckiff was impressive, taking 5/125 in the hosts' first innings": Does this need a ref?

changed YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning that Johnny Wardle had just been sacked by Yorkshire, otherwise he would have been on the tour himself.

No, unless one thinks it was supposed to have made him more bitter; he was also being ghosted and told to troll, more or less YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Former England spinner Ian Peebles asserted that the Victorian threw "the greater number of balls they deliver"" Does the quote ("they") refer to more than one bowler?

Yes. done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would the sections on English and Australian press reaction be better combined rather than split by the 3rd and 5th Test parts?

done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Meckiff reported that from the Melbourne Test onwards, his son was verbally abused by classmates, while his parents were persistently told that their son bowled illegally." This sentence is slightly confusing due to the use of "son" twice to mean two different people.

tweaked YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning Tony Lock's dubious action as well, given the controversy at the time over him? And he had to alter his action.

More to follow. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

"Over the next two years, sceptics and sporting opponents mostly regarded his action as fair, and said so in public." Any examples?

Unfortunately no, per the same reasoning below about his new action being irrelevant YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although you have linked "called", I'm not sure anyone reading it who is unfamiliar would understand, particularly as "called" is used in other contexts.

elaborated YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"He then missed the drawn Third Test in Karach" Is there a known reason?

Well he completed the previous match's bowling, and Lindwall was swapped in per the scorecard, but the newspaper archive's daily reports of that Test didn't even mention the swap at all, and on its very short match eve preview said that Australia's XI was being finalised, but did not mention that Meckiff was injured. Maybe he was dropped as his first two Tests were ordinary, maybe be got sick or injured on the morning, as many got sick on that tour YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

"...as Benaud's men..." Worth mentioning at the start of this section that Benaud was still captain? Or too fussy?

I don't think we need to bother YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Meckiff returned to Australia in time to play his only Sheffield Shield match for the 1959–60 season, taking the only ten-wicket match haul of his career." Too many onlys?

done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Benaud fell on the second ball of the final over attempting a hook" Reads a bit like he fell over playing the shot!

done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Critics claimed that his new bowling action adopted in 1959–60 had made him legitimate but reduced his pace and effectiveness." Any idea who? (And something similar was said of Tony Lock)

No, Whimpress just says that the correlation/causality was given and referred to the subcontinent tour, but per above the newspaper rreports only had ten-sentence daily reports of data with no analysis :( So I don't know where his data is coming from YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick: Is the section on the tied test too long, given his limited involvement in the game? Feel free to ignore this.

I don't think so, as I've gone through about 4 history books and all of them decide to give it about a triple weighting compared to other Tests. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reaction to his being called in 62/63? Surely it created a stir. Also, any reason for change after his "clean" seasons?

Surpisingly no. I checked the main Victorian newspaper archive and it just had one sentence on both occasions, just stating it, as thought it was just a rrandom catch or six :O.... weird YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test Match: Fantastic! I had no idea it was so dramatic. Did Benaud ever comment later in any of his millions of books?

Benaud's keeping mum about the conspiracy, and isn't saying anything except the usual PR/PC stuff that no dirty tricks were used, ie what is already in the article. Maybe they hace some secret diary/tape that will be revealed once everyone's dead YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything about his personal life?

Unfortunately his autobiog was written when he was a very young man, so no more detail will be found except in the skinny snippets in some contemporary's autobiog that I've already scraped YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "taking" (i.e. wickets) is a little overused, especially in the subcontinent section.

Varied YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember Meckiff attending the Test when Muralitharan was called, and I think Wisden said he was so bothered by what happened, he had to leave. Worth adding?

My book here says that Meckiff thought the public execution was distasteful, but I also found a newspaper article that Meckiff says that hhe thinks Murali is dubious, and his views are rather complex, so I'm not sure this can be explained in a compact way and lengthening the article by 3-4 sentences, which would raise eyebrows about weight YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, very interesting and engaging! I think some of the scores sections drag a little when compared to the controversial sections, but this is probably unavoidable. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All good now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion To aid the reader with all the harvard refs it might be good idea to use the harvnb template and related. Albert_Bridge, London is a good example. Ryan Norton 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not as I don't think it adds anything worthwhile and just makes the page article. There are only a few books and it hardly takes anything all to just look at the list for 5 books without the need for link to the book directly within the page YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – My apologies for not coming earlier, but I've been busy here and in real life lately. I reviewed this the first time and am picking up from where I left off. Nothing major to report, just a few minor things.

~~Subcontinental tour: "Meckiff was unable to capture a wicket in the Indian second innings as Benaud's men completed an victory...". "an" → "a".~~S
~~Tied Test against the West Indies: "but an accurate long and throw saw him run out." I'm not the expert on cricket terms, but is "and" supposed to be in the middle of "long and throw"?~~
~~Reaction: A missing "he" in "Rowan later indicated that would have called the left-armer".~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 13:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Many thanks again YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another nice cricket article. I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't received more attention here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (1a).

Just looked quickly at the top. Why is "Australia" piped/linked twice in the opening sentence? Why is it linked at all? Why is "Victoria" linked? Are readers really going to hit the link to the state of Victoria, just as they start the article? Why is "Melbourne" (an international city) linked, especially when there's a more specific link next to it (the MCG)?
The paragraphing looks lumpy and grey. Any opportunities to redraw the boundries? Tony (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) PS I am inclined to support this, but I haven't looked in detail at the prose yet. One sentence sticks out in a random sweep:[reply]

what do you mean about the paragraphs? Too long?? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Second para in lead was huge, wasn't it? Seems to be fine now. Tony (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- "He denied ever throwing, but admitted ~~that~~ he may have been open to suspicion after bowling 15 to 20 overs in a day's play, as his body would begin to fall away in the delivery stride due to fatigue." It's not a direct quotation, so "fall away" is a little cryptic. fall away due to fatigue ... can it be expressed more plainly, clearly, for the readers? Could you take into consideration that it's often possible to remove "that". There another one in the first sentence in that para; although the one in the third sentence has to stay. In fact, there are tons of thats: "Meckiff reported that from the Melbourne Test onwards, his son was verbally abused by classmates; Meckiff's parents were persistently told that he bowled illegally.[58] He added that doctors believed his anxiety was contributing to stomach ailments.[58] At that time, players were not allowed to talk to the media during the season, and Meckiff was upset that he ...". Rephrasing here and there if possible? It's part of rendering a quotation- and paraphrase-intensive story smoothly. Some can be removed, others reworded, and others left as they are. Could you avoid "He added that"; same ref tag consecutively, too.
- "Meckiff was wicketless in Australia's win in the First Test against Pakistan on a matting wicket in Dacca (now in Bangladesh). He then took three wickets in the first innings of the Second Test in Lahore,[4] including that of opposition captain Hanif Mohammad". "Then" is usually best avoided in sequential narrative; you just don't need it. There are at least two more in that para. Can you do a sweep of "then" and "that"? "that of" refers back to a plural, so it doesn't work. Tony (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did a large cull of thats and thens by rewording or straight chopping YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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