Talk:Gubby Allen

Cricket Heritage.

Gubby Allen was not Plum Warner's son. He was however, the nephew of Reginald Allen who had played Test Cricket for Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thermosoverfil (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Other side of the coin

The article currently relies almost entirely on Jim Swanton's biography of Allen and that is the establishment mouthpiece spouting on about the "virtues" of the prime establishment figure. Balance is needed. The readers need to be told the facts about "Sir" and Middlesex players having to stand to attention when "Sir" entered their dressing room. Allen was arrogant and full of his own self-importance. He took advantage of the "gentlemen" versus players hegemony of his time, though he saw the tide finally turn. Allen was an average first-class player who probably wouldn't have played for England if he had been a pro, though he evidently believed he was a great bowler and captain. I'll own that he was an efficient administrator and he certainly cared about MCC, but he was not good for the game as a whole and the article needs much more on this aspect than one sentence saying that he liked to hear "clipped accents". More sources are needed, especially written by the "players". ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

To do

Extended content

Most of the factual "heavy lifting" is done now. Lots and lots still needed, but I think old Gubby needs a bit of time to bed in now. Remaining tasks, with an initial aim of GA (when I've had a bit of a break from him!): Style and technique Analysis of impact as administrator Opinions, good and bad Amateurs and professionals Serious, serious cutting and copy edit Bring to more reasonable length More cutting needed later Legacy Personality More on personal life Less abrupt ending Genuine amateur, as opposed to shamateur Gone as far as possible given sources More on relationship with Warner, including ups and downs (I've taken quite a bit out about this)? Note on his millions of operations? Other sources: Social History Nothing worth having Wisden (esp Obituary) Gibson's Cricket Captains Gents and Players (quite a bit here, though some regurgitates Swanton) Bent arms and dodgy wickets (time as selector) Cricket at the Crossroads (D'Olly) nothing new not in Oborne/Swanton Anything by Trueman/Close/Anti-establishment Check Frith Bodyline over fast bowling selection for final Test of 1937.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gubby Allen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 00:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Sarastro1 (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies:  Done Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Cross-checked with other FAs: Wilfred Rhodes, Douglas Jardine, Wally Hammond, Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927, Roy Kilner, George Macaulay, Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer), Adelaide leak, George Headley, George Hirst, Len Hutton, Hedley Verity, Arthur Mold, Learie Constantine, Percy Chapman, Arthur Gilligan, Percy Fender, Leg before wicket, Jack Hobbs, Archie MacLaren, Maurice Leyland, Abe Waddington Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: Yes Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Cross-checked with other FAs: Wilfred Rhodes, Douglas Jardine, Wally Hammond, Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927, Roy Kilner, George Macaulay, Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer), Adelaide leak, George Headley, George Hirst, Len Hutton, Hedley Verity, Arthur Mold, Learie Constantine, Percy Chapman, Arthur Gilligan, Percy Fender, Leg before wicket, Jack Hobbs, Archie MacLaren, Maurice Leyland, Abe Waddington Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

As per the above checklist, there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA. The prose quality in particular is fantastic. Thanks, Sarastro1, very much for your diligence in writing such great articles.

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 21:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

I would argue that Allen was not influential. Either way the word "influential" should be removed. 172.56.12.73 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Same goes for "very successful" 172.56.12.73 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither your opinion nor mine are the important things hre. The sources agree that he was influential and successful, and that is the only important factor. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes he was influential. So we are disappointed that his decisive and manipulative steering in the D'Oliveira affair ended up this lame in his lede/blurb: "he was deeply involved" (sure he was). I'm glad & proud this wiki had the Affair a TFA in March 2015 in the first place. This Eton-dick has nothing much to be proud of in this, and it's wiki-bad that his article does not show that. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)