Jump to content

Talk:Jack Crawford (cricketer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleJack Crawford (cricketer) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 1, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 11, 2011Good article nomineeListed
December 11, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
October 26, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jack Crawford (cricketer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mykleavens (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this shortly. --Mykleavens (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial report

[edit]

A detailed review has raised the following points which I've listed within each section of the article. You will need to address these before I can proceed further and so I am placing the review on hold for a week. When the points have been addressed, I'll review the article again and provide a final summary.

Lead

[edit]
  1. Lead can have up to four paragraphs: suggest the second paragraph is split at "...future England captain. However, a dispute..."; also suggest the final sentence is moved to the end of the first paragraph where it is more relevant
  2. Should say here that he was right-handed: i.e., RHB and RM/OB
  3. Mention that he was bespectacled when playing
  4. More links needed: batsman, England cricket team, Australia (country), First World War
  1. Split the second paragraph as suggested. However, I disagree about final sentence, as final career figures would go at the end of a career, and his career had not ended at this point. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hmmm. WP:OVERLINK suggests that common terms should not be linked. No-one reading this article needs to be told what Australia is, or what the war was, and doing this is generally frowned upon by reviewers. However, I've linked England cricket team. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]
  1. Heading should be "Early life and career" unless the section is split where he first plays for Surrey
  2. Suggest "at Cane Hill" instead of "in"
  3. John and Frank played for Kent – provide links to both and also to the Kent club
  4. Vivian and Reginald played for Leicestershire – provide link to club
  5. Edit: "Consequently, Crawford spent a lot of time surrounded by cricket. Crawford first attended school..." to "Consequently, Crawford spent a lot of time surrounded by cricket. He first attended school..." Watch for too many repetitions of name and, vice-versa, too many repetitions of "he"
  6. "runs" and "wickets" are link repetitions here (already linked in lead)
  7. Edit: "in that first year" to "in his first year"
  8. Edit: "he scored 759 runs and 75 wickets" to "he scored 759 runs and took 75 wickets"
  9. link repetitions: "off spin", "Surrey", "first-class", "Kent", "Leicestershire"
  10. Sub-sections: I think the section needs to be broken up so that there is one sub-section for his school cricket to 1905 and another for his Surrey matches in 1904 and 1905.
  1. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The reason I have not mentioned the clubs is that Vivian played for Surrey and Leicestershire and Reginald just for Leics. To explain this would rather disrupt the flow. If you think it is vital, I will include it but would prefer not to. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. My preferred style (and this is fairly normal, particularly at FAC) is to link in the lead and then the first instance in the main body. It is not mentioned in WP:LEAD, but as I say it is quite common. However, if it is a problem, I will remove them. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. See above on linking in lead and text. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not sure I agree here. It means either having two sections which both include school and county cricket (as he played school cricket in 1905 after playing for Surrey in 1904) or splitting his school and county cricket. I would prefer not to do so as his county cricket only makes sense in the context of his school cricket and if they are separated, it just becomes "he played for Repton until 1905 and scored X runs. In 1904 he made his debut for Surrey..." At the time, it was a huge deal that he was a successful county cricketer while still at school. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


International cricketer

[edit]
  1. "the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)" – article is superfluous especially as you sometimes use MCC without article; also MCC is repeat link
  2. It is usual in many sources to capitalise "First Test", "Second Test", etc.
  3. "open the batting" repeats a link: would it better linked to opening batsman?
  4. Crawford evidently did not go to university; did he have a career outside cricket after he left school?
  5. Capitalisation: "The Oval" is always a capital "T"
  6. "Lord's Cricket Ground": just Lord's will suffice
  7. link A.G. Steel and Stanley Jackson
  8. "Gentlemen and Players" ==> "Gentlemen v Players"
  9. Need links to both the South Africa and Australia national teams
  10. "Australia recorded a big victory but were assisted by rain which made it difficult to bat on the pitch during England's first innings" is an awkward construction: try something like "Australia recorded a big victory but rain affected the pitch and created difficult batting conditions during England's first innings"
  11. Watch use of comma followed by "and" outside quotations and where there is no secondary clause: e.g., "...enhanced his growing reputation, and critics expected..."
  12. Spelling: "Leiecestershire"
  1. See above about repeat linking. I'm not too sure what you are getting at here. The link is to the MCC article, but generally if you are using an acronym, it is always spelt out on the first instance with the acronym given beside it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. On wikipedia, it is always first Test. For example, see Donald Bradman, a featured article. I'm sure it used to say so in the WP:CRIC style guide, but no longer! And a non-cricketer will always pull you up on First Test. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. [Opening batsman]] links to Batting order (cricket), not its own article. And the other link to this article refers to a different batting position which has its own section. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The sources do not say anything about a career until he became a teacher. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. They are linked in the school section. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Adopted this with a slight tweak. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Personally, I have no problem with this, but done anyway. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with Surrey

[edit]
  1. "Leveson-Gower" – his name had no hyphen (3 or 4 instances)
  2. What was the result of the game against the Australians; did Crawford play; and who did captain Surrey?
  3. "a degree of idiocy rarely met with even in the realms of cricket administration": he should have come to Yorkshire and observed The Comm-it-tee in action!
  4. Anything in sources around why Crawford did not seek another county or was the Adelaide opportunity too good to pass up? I realise he would have had to overcome residential qualification rules to transfer at that time and no doubt Harris would have come down from on high.
  1. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, a touch dramatic, but a nice quote. This was the same year that the Wisden editor wrote that the selectors "touched the confines of lunacy!" --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nothing direct in any of the sources. My impression is that he took his bat home, so to speak. As he was a little offended by his treatment, he would not have wanted to go around advertising his services, and I don't think county swaps were that common by that stage. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Later career

[edit]
  1. South Australia is a link repetition
  2. "and later that year" ==> "and, later that year,"
  3. "1913—14 season" and "1914—15": shorter dashes needed
  4. links to North America and New Zealand (as places)
  5. links to Otago and Wellington cricket clubs
  6. Did Crawford serve in the FWW in any capacity or was he excused given his eyesight?
  7. What was Crawford's job on his return to England, presumably teaching? If so, where?
  8. Did Crawford marry and have any family?
  9. link to YCCC
  1. See above. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Done, not quite sure how that happened! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WP:OVERLINK
  5. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No info in sources. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No info in sources. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No info in sources. It may be possible to find out from ancestry websites, but these are not accepted as reliable sources. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Linked earlier in article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Style and technique

[edit]
  1. comma: "the front foot, and he played"
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  1. As a general point, I would say the article depends too heavily on one writer and upon websites.
  2. Do you have the E.W. Swanton-edited Barclays World of Cricket? This has several references to Crawford, including comments on his "brilliance" and a potted biography on p.167, written by Neville Cardus, which talks about his style and provides some personal information like his height and physique. If you don't have the book, let me know and I'll add the useful bits to the article.
  3. As you have used CricketArchive, CricInfo and Wisden Online, there should be an external links section to complement the bibliography.
  1. Bear in mind that one of the websites comes direct from Wisden and that the one writer is merely the editor of a Wisden anthology in one book. Another link is to the Times. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If there is anything new in the book, by all means add it in. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. When the links have been used in an article, they should not also be included in the external links. (see WP:ELPOINTS)


General

[edit]

Given the lack of biographical information about Crawford outside of cricket, I can't see that this could ever go to a feature review. I was initially dubious that I could pass it for "broad in coverage" but have looked closely at the criteria and am encouraged by this footnote: This requirement (i.e., addresses main aspects) is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. The key words here are "every major fact" so I will look at the article purely as a review of Crawford's cricket career rather than as a full-blown biography.

The main need is a thorough copyedit per most of the points raised above. In particular, you need to pay attention to linking by seeking not only to link as many facets as possible but also to ensure that link repetitions do not occur. Looking at the cricket project's criteria for a B rating, the essence of point 4 is "it provides adequate navigation through links, categories and appropriate templates" and I have to say that the article is currently weak on linking. There are also certain naming conventions in common usage such as The Oval and Fifth Test: the cricket project has listed many of these on its main page but they are familiar enough in general cricket reports and reviews.

I will place the article on hold for a week to let you address the points raised. I will then provide a final summary based on the GA criteria. --Mykleavens (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I don't quite agree on the linking, as I have said above, but I have made most other changes. As far as comprehensiveness goes, there are less comprehensive articles at FA, to be honest. The main consideration is what is available in the sources and what the person was notable for. If something is not known about a person, it is not known. If the person is famous as a cricketer, too much information on their personal life can sometimes be too much detail. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia article, not a full biography. Anyway, I have no plans to take this to FAC at the moment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second report

[edit]
  • Lead #4. I've read WP:OVERLINK again and agree with your comment about well-known places so no need to link Australia and the like. Thanks for giving me these pointers as I'm learning about the site as I go along, although I had read that section before and obviously forgot one bit.
  • Early life #4. Agreed; it would be cumbersome. In any case, once these players eventually get articles (I understand the cricket project intends to create an article for every first-class player eventually), it will be easy to find out more via the links.
  • Early life #6. This is a very interesting one because what you suggest is both logical and my own preference (I hope that makes me logical too!). The linking guidelines seem to say you shouldn't repeat a link unless the second instance of the term is a long way from the first, which is what I have been tending to follow. However, the lead is supposed to be a concise overview amounting to a summary of the whole article so that, inter alia, it outlines the article's scope. The lead should therefore be a mini-article (not a "stub" as such but quantitatively so) in its own right. Therefore, it would make sense to apply links both here and in the body. After all, if an article is truly a good one, the casual reader should be able to get everything he might reasonably need from the lead alone.
  • Early life #10. Okay.
  • International cricketer #1. I was meaning the definite article before MCC as in "the MCC". I know people sometimes say things like "the MCC" or "the Fulham" but generally these names are used without a preceding article.
  • International cricketer #2. Okay, I'll comply with accepted practice on the site.
  • Outside cricket. I accept the lack of source information about his teaching career and personal life. Unless someone had written a well-researched biography, you could not be expected to find this information. In any case, the scope of the article is his cricket career.
  • Dispute #4. Transfers were very unusual and severely frowned upon by Harris as in the case of Hammond several years later.
  • Sources #2. Leave that with me. I bought this book recently via eBay. It's another brick in the wall but it provides excellent overviews of a multiplicity of topics by recognised writers (e.g., Cardus; the article on YCCC was jointly written by Hodgson and Kilburn) and I would recommend it.
  • Sources #3. Thanks for pointing me towards WP:ELPOINTS which I certainly haven't seen before. There is just one point, however, which is that numerous cricket biographies appear to have an EL section which includes stylised links to the player's CricketArchive and CricInfo profile pages. These are in double braces and start with, for example, "Cricketarchive|ref=". Given that this is a customised format, I imagine they have been introduced by the cricket project as a convention. There are two on Lord Hawke's page as follows (note that it displays current page name but the link is defined by the html details):

If you can leave this with me a bit longer, I'll add what I can from the Swanton tome and then do a final review which I'll summarise directly against the GA criteria. --Mykleavens (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found quite a bit in Swanton that is useful and have added it in. Have a look and see what you think. There is one point I should have spotted earlier where you say he drew the crowds in. You need a citation for a claim like that. --Mykleavens (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some good stuff there. I've taken out a few of the comparisons which would be meaningless to the general reader and one or two of the quotes repeat what is already there. I've tried to tidy it up a bit. Also, I would suggest that where you add information try to paraphrase as much as possible as a sea of quotations is a little off-putting and again, frowned upon. Also, when you put in a quote, make sure you attribute it in the text, not just the ref (e.g. Swanton says: "Blah, blah..."). --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's everything so far, thanks for your review so far. I think the article is coming along nicely now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria

[edit]

well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise –
(b) the spelling and grammar are correct –
(c) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for:
  • lead sections –
  • layout –
  • words to watch –
  • fiction –
  • list incorporation – not applicable

factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout –
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, contentious material relating to living persons and counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged –
(c) it contains no original research –
(d) science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines – not applicable

broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic –
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail –
(c) it uses a summary style –

neutral –

stable –

illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content –
(b) images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions –

The Surrey side for that 1909 match against the Australians

[edit]

"I do not know who was responsible for the selection of the second eleven sort of team furnished up for such an important match" Crawford was indulging in some hyperbole there. It looks to me as if Surrey had about eight members of their strongest XI. Apart from Rushby (and Crawford himself), the only major absentee I can see is Jack Hobbs. Also it's rather ironic that Crawford's withdrawal led to Tom Hayward, the senior pro, captaining the side (even though MC Bird, who I believe was an amateur, was in the XI) - worth noting in the article? The side fielded had at least eight professionals and possibly ten (I don't know the status of Goatly and Kirk). That all tends to suggest that Crawford allowed himself to get a bit carried away. Of course he was still only 22, and may have had the rashness of youth. I suspect that if CW Alcock had still been Secretary (he retired in 1907), things would never have been allowed to get so out of hand. No doubt the new Secretary was still rather feeling his way. JH (talk page) 09:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The McKinstry book on Hobbs suggests that it was more deep-seated than that; that's why I added the comments about Alverstone, who really seems to have messed the team up. I wonder (speculating here!) if Crawford had seen enough and this was the last straw. Apart from Rushby, I think the major absentee was Marshall, who also got himself into trouble that season (something to do with being slightly noisy in a street which Alverstone though was terrible). I'm fairly sure Hobbs was not part of the trouble, but I might just check! I think it is worth adding about Hayward captaining the team, and I'll see if I can find out if any of the others were amateurs. Oddly, though, everyone at the time mentioned that the team was weakened suggesting that they thought Crawford had at least some point. But I think you might be right about him getting carried away, he seems a little headstrong. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly read elsewhere that Alverstone had an ambition that Surrey would one day field an all amateur side. But I think even then most would have recognised that that idea could only be fantasy. The example of Somerset showed how hard it was to be competitive if you relied almost entirely on amateurs. (Somerset were so strapped for cash that they had little choice.) Obviously as President Alverstone had a lot of influence, but he could only get his way if he could persuade the majority of the committee, and I can't see their being in favour of a measure that would clearly drastically weaken the side. Alverstone was in his sixties, and I imagine that his ideas on descipline and on amateurs had been formed half a century before and were rather out of date. However Rushby is supposed to have a poor disciplinary record. Apparently if he didn't feel like playing he had been known to send a telegram reading simply: "Rushby ill. Rushby." JH (talk page) 20:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked up what David Lemmon's The History of Surrey County Cricket Club has to say about the affair. It sheds some additional light on why Marshal was suspended. It seems that it was a bit more than being "slightly noisy in a street". Apparently at Chesterfield during the previous match Marshal and some teammates had headed and kicked a ball about in the street on their way to their hotel. A perhaps rather over-officious constable asked Marshal for his name. However he wouldn't give it, so was taken to the police station, where the others who followed him had their names and addresses taken. They also gave the name of Walter Lees, who had not gone with them at all. The matter was taken to the Chief Constable, but he dismissed it and the case did not reach court. As Alverstoke was Lord Chief Justice at the time, one can understand his being less than impressed. Most of the above Lemmon took from a passage in Hobbs' ghosted autobiography, published in 1935. Hobbs himself was not in Chesterfield, as he was playing for England at the time. So the real offence seems to have not been being rowdy in the street, but Marshal refusing to give his name to the PC. JH (talk page) 09:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked on CricketArchive Jack Hobbs' appearances just prior to the match against the Australians. He appeared in the match against Lancashire that immediately followed the Derbyshire game, but was "absent hurt" in both innings. There were then two Gentlemen v Players matches, one at Lord's and one at The Oval. Interestingly, unlike the Tests, almost no county matches were scheduled to clash with these, and Surrey didn't have a match. You'd expect Hobbs to play in at least one of these G v P matches if fit, but he didn't take part in either, which strongly suggests that he was still injured. Thus he probably wasn't fit for the match against the Australians. One of the books that I looked in mentioned a torn fingernail keeping him out for 10 matches, but I had thought that this was earlier in the season. Modern sympathies naturally tend to lie with Crawford, but the more I look into this the more his stand appears petulant and uncalled for. It doesn't look as though Alverstone's preference for playing amateurs had any material impact on the composition of the side, which even without Hobbs, Marshal, Crawford and Rushby was still a pretty strong one. And I see that Surrey had rather the better of a rain-ruined draw. Interestingly, this was Surrey's second match against the Australians. In the earlier match, in May, Surrey had fielded 9 first choice players, plus two in Curwen and Spring whom I've never even heard of. Crawford had captained in that match too, and Surrey had won. Apart from the unavoidable absence of Hobbs in the second match, if Crawford had played in it the side would have been little if at all weaker than in the first match. So why was he willing to lead in one match but not in the other? JH (talk page) 19:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re Hobbs; he practically ripped off his fingernail in the Lancashire match and missed five weeks from the beginning of July: this is in Wisden for 1909. I wonder what else was going on. History between Crawford and Alverstone or Leveson-Gower? A check of the Times reveals that Bird and Kirk were the amateurs in the team, but nothing is mentioned in terms of a weak Surrey side except Crawford and Hobbs being missing. Crawford's Times obituary speculates that there was more going on than revealed at the time, but the Wisden summary for Surrey in 1909 (I only have access to this through the anthology for 1900-1940) mentions "Surrey had trouble with some of their professionals". I wonder if this was somehow the root of it, rather than the actual team for the game, and Crawford just lost it when he realised Rushby was missing? Again, Wisden says "but [Crawford] refused to [captain], his reason being that the committee had left out essential players, among others Rushby..." I think you may be right that Crawford, maybe accustomed to everything going his way, just threw his toys out of the pram. But, there is no smoke without a fire? The McKinstry book on Hobbs mentions the poisonous atmosphere in the team in 1909, and also says (you may know better here) that Alverstone's policy was at least partially responsible for the decline of Surrey in the early 1900s due to the lack of stability in the team. But even if this was the case, it would have nothing to do with Crawford, who was at school and ironically would have benefitted from it had he not been quite as good as he was. Hmmm. I'm just not sure what was really going on. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One other view: Birley's "Social History" (although I doubt he is any more informed than us on the details of the case) claims that Crawford was unhappy that two players "charged with insubordination" were left out. Presumably Rushby and Marshal. No mention of a weak team; if this was the real reason, maybe the weak team protest was just a smokescreen that these two players should not have been dropped. McKinstry says that Marshal was a close friend of Hobbs, which makes him unlikely to be too much of a rebel. Also from McKinstry: Marshal refused to give his name and he and the others (for moral support) went to the station, but when the Derbyshire chief constable heard about it, he ordered no further action to be taken. McKinstry also gives the reason Marshal did not give his name: he did not feel a crime had been committed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What McKinstry says about what happened at Chesterfield agrees with what Lemmon quotes from Hobbs' autobiogrtaphy. I'd guess that that was McKinstry's source too, I hadn't know that Marshal and Hobbs were particular friends. I suppose that the two of them were probably the youngest professionals in the side, and so it wouldn't be that surprising that they became friends. It's interesting to speculate on what might have happened had Hobbs not been away playing for England when the match at Chesterfield was played. Would Marshal have got Hobbs into trouble, or would Hobbs have kept Marshal out of it? I'd imagine that Hayward wasn't walking with the group who got into trouble. He was highly respected as the senior pro, and I don't think would have permitted anything that he saw as misbehaviour. It's interesting, given that Alverstone was still President in 1914, that when the then club captain CTA Wilkinson was away on business Hayward captained the side on a number of occasions in August in preference to any of the young amateurs (who by then I think included Percy Fender). And Surrey won the Championship. JH (talk page) 20:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
McKinstry rather suggests that Hobbs would have joined in: it was the sort of practical joking for which he was notorious! I wonder what may have happened then? I doubt the committee would have been quite as friendly towards Hobbs as they were later. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think even then Hobbs was well-liked, which might have helped. Ronald Mason quotes the note that Leweson-Gower (chairman of the Test selectors as well as official Surrey captain) wrote to Hobbs on his selection earlier that season for the first Test, saying how pleased he was and how much Hobbs deserved it. It was very warm and friendly. As for Surrey's struggles during the first decade of the 20th century, I suspect that a decline was inevitable as a lot of their great players (Abel, Richardson, Lockwood) aged. They did have one or two duds as captain, but of course the officially appointed captain had to be an amateur then, so I don't know how much of that can be laid at Alverstone's door if there was a lack of anyone suitable. And there was a revival under Lord Dalmeny, captain from 1905-7. Alcock's retirement as Secretary in 1907 probably didn't help the club. Lweson-Gower was the nominal captain from 1908-10, but it looks as though he wasn't available much in 1909. (He had at least one other job, as chairman of the England Test selectors, of course.) JH (talk page) 21:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing the Double

[edit]

Returning to England for the 1906 season, Crawford completed the double of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets in first-class cricket, the youngest player at the time to accomplish this feat. I'd be very surprised if it had been beaten since, but I don't know how to check. JH (talk page) 17:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess Brian Close, but I'm not too sure where to check either. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close, born 24 February 1931, was 18 years and 6-and-a-bit months old at the end of the 1949 season. Crawford, born 1 December 1886, was 19 years and 9 months old at the end of the 1906 season. Dates easily confirmed in Wisden, Cricinfo etc. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments

[edit]

(Copied from talk page here) I've now looked at your latest additions. Reading what Hart has to say, I can't help seeing parallels to the KP affair. He seems to have been a similar sort of character. I suppose Leweson Gower is the equivalent of Cook, and Lord Alverstoke of Paul Downton, though I don't see a parallel for Andy Flower! A couple of thoughts follow. There may be more once I've had a chance to reread the whole article:

There was some controversy over his eligibility to play; New South Wales initially protested, but Victoria had previously decided to ignore a rule which required a three-month qualification period, and the New South Wales Cricket Association (NSWCA) Executive Committee accepted this, to the displeasure of the full NSWCA. That's slightly confusingly worded. Does it mean: There was some controversy over his eligibility to play; New South Wales initially protested, but Victoria had previously decided to ignore a rule which required a three-month qualification period, and the New South Wales Cricket Association (NSWCA) Executive Committee had accepted this, to the displeasure of the full NSWCA, thus setting a precedent.? (Suggested added words in bold. I'm assuming that the displeasure of the full NSWCA was regarding the Victoria occasion that had set the precedent, rather than about the Crawford case.)

It is unclear what his role was at this time; he seems to have had no official cricketing role and it is possible he worked as a teacher simply to maintain his amateur status. Not clear what is meant by "role" here.

JH (talk page) 09:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, either Alverstoke was not as powerful as he has generally been portrayed or else he was less reactionary regarding the place of professionals. I've just looked up on CricketArchive the matches in which Tom Hayward captained Surrey and there were a surprising number: 2 in 1905, 2 in 1909 (including that match against the Australians), 2 in 1913, and as many as 9 in 1914. I don't think that either Rhodes or Sutcliffe was ever named as captain of Yorkshire when the regular captain was unavailable, were they, even though they were comparable in experience and the respect in which they were held to Hayward? JH (talk page) 10:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. In his book Cricketers of My Times A. A. Thomson mentions that he was present at the Oval on the day in 1919 when Crawford and Hobbs had their famous opening partnership against the clock. I'm undecided whether it's worth quoting in the article some of what he says about it. He mentions "a steamy drizzle and horrid light" (which could well have handicapped the bowlers (wet ball) and fielders more than the batsman, I guess). He writes: "...there was no swiping, no thrashing about. The hitting was as deadly and as precise as machine-gun fire; the placing might have been the work of two snooker players of world class. There seemed to be nothing that the fielders could do." That's from p122. JH (talk page) 17:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished going through the article now. I've made a few changes, almost all very minor, and also mentioned one point on the Talk page. One other thought. You refer to Hart writing of him: Hart comments: "Crawford's financial dealings with the SACA reveal him both as mercenary and as an awkward 'cuss'. The latter aspect of his personality needs to be taken into account lest he be considered merely an establishment victim in his parting with Surrey. I wonder if some of that ought to be brought forward into the section dealing with the dispute with Surrey to give a better balance. I know that Benny Green became a noted cricket historian, but some of what you've quoted of his strikes me as being very partisan on the side of Crawford. JH (talk page) 18:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few points

[edit]

Sarastro has invited comments, but I can find little to fault in this article.

  • I might link "first-class" in the lead and at first mention in the main text.

That's all from me. This fine article is well up to standard. – Tim riley talk 11:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

[edit]
  • Odd how none of the images seem to have him in glasses
  • Unusually, - odd to repeat this twice in three sentences
  • Although hampered by injuries during the 1905 season for Repton, his last at the school, Crawford scored 766 runs, with a batting average of 85 and took 55 wickets, during the five matches in which he was fit to bowl, at an average under 13. - so many clauses
  • for the majority of the rest of the series. - is there a way to avoid so many "of the"'s?
  • Towards the end of the season, he scored 103 runs in 90 minutes against Kent, his only century that year, hitting several deliveries into the crowd; The Times described the ball in this innings as "soaring away like a bird". - Dare I say he would have been a baseball player had he been born in the US? (*don't hurt me*)
  • for a tour of Australia. - since we just said which country, can we have a different term?
  • In 1909, Alverstone left out several professionals. With the regular Surrey captain, H. D. G. Leveson Gower, unavailable for much of the season, Crawford frequently assumed the leadership; he disapproved of Alverstone's policy towards professionals. - can we avoid too much professionalism?
  • in an incident of some kind. - being...? If not explained in sources, a note maybe?
  • Scarborough Festival - worth a link?
  • Gentlemen of the South - worth a link?
  • Such a performance would probably have earned him Test selection for Australia if he had been Australian, and Wisden noted that his record was impressive in Australian cricket. - Repetition of "Australian"
  • the Ashes - don't think you've linked this yet
  • In 1913, Crawford was included in an Australian team which toured North America. - any details on this tour?
  • an Otago Colts team which produced several future Otago players. - any worth name-dropping?
  • Married twice, he separated from his first wife, Anita, and married his second, Hilda, - so he must have divorced Anita some time. I mean, bigamy was illegal in England, wasn't it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was, but the source I've used is basically a half-arsed job which was never finished properly. The person who wrote it died before completing his research and his writing partner didn't bother to do much except tidy it up. They could not find much about his marriage, and this is all they found. He may have divorced her but the details are not available. To be honest, bigamy was illegal, but that doesn't mean it didn't go on. If his wife was in Australia, no-one in England would even know, I'd imagine. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

[edit]

Here are a few observations – I am about two-thirds through. I've also done a little copyediting which you can check out from the edit history. Possibly some of my points will have been picked up by earlier reviewers:

  • In lead: are the words "With the ball" necessary? He is unlikely to have bowled with anything else.
  • Also in lead: "Unusually, Crawford wore spectacles while playing." I would say: "Unusually for a first-class cricketer, Crawford wore spectacles while playing." (Is he wearing them in the photo? I can't be sure)
  • "...to pursue a different career" is unnecessarily vague. "To pursue a career in industry" would be acceptable.
  • The words "He died in 1963" are covered in the first line of the lead.
  • All these done. Regarding the pictures, he is definitely wearing them in the lead picture (zoom in and you can see some thin wire frames), but not too sure about the action picture. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life, etc: "As the composition of the side continually changed, players being brought in for just a handful of games, it performed poorly, leading to unrest from supporters accustomed to success". A somewhat lumbering sentence; the words "players being brought in for just a handful of games" seemingly unnecessary as this is covered by "continually changed". And the phrase "handful of games" has been used in a recent sentence. My suggested simplification: "The composition of the side continually changed, and the team performed poorly, causing unrest among supporters accustomed to success".
  • One complaint from my earlier peer review stands – unnecessary detailing of school career. I suggest delete: "The school magazine suggested that he batted more responsibly, taking fewer chances.[12] Once again, he excelled in two crucial fixtures.[3] Crawford also assumed the captaincy; his team was undefeated in the season."
  • "Wisden ... questioned whether, if he played Test cricket, he would do so for England or South Africa." You deal with this curiosity in a footnote, but I think the explanation should be in the text. The association with South Africa seems very slight.
  • Tour to South Africa: I would give the age at which Crawford became England's youngest Test cricketer. This information must be available somewhere.
  • Surrey cricketer: shouldn't Steel and Jackson be wikilinked?
  • Tour to Australia: "the series was more competitive than suggested by the results." This viewpoint should be attributed as well as cited. (And once again Crawford seems to have forgotten his specs)
  • Dispute with Surrey:
  • You casually mention Crawford's brother Vivian, who captained Leicestershire. JNC was actually the youngest of three brothers all of whom played first class cricket; the other was Reginald Crawford, who also played for Leicestershire. I think that the existence of these cricketing siblings should be at least briefly noted early in the article, when you mention the father and uncle. There are WP articles for Vivian and Reginald.
  • The phrase "less effective" is used twice in swift succession, and since it is also used near the end of the previous section, I'd rephrase at least one of these.
  • "when the performance of Tom Rushby was instrumental" – this wording is unnecessarily stiff and uninformative. Why not something like "after a strong bowling performance by Tom Rushby". Or even give the figures.
  • "Another professional, Alan Marshal, was suspended during 1909 and his contract was terminated the following year." What is the relevance of Marshal's dismissal to Crawford's article? The admittedly slim WP article on Marshal suggests a different reason for his sacking.
  • "Hart observes..." We need to know who Hart is.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments
  • Cricket in South Australia
  • "Such a performance would probably have earned him Test selection if he had been Australian" – opinion needs attribution as well as citation.
  • "In the 1910–11 season, Crawford scored a half-century in every game he played but was less successful with the ball." First, I'd make this "1910–11 Australian season". Then, does the sentence refer to every game he played, or to every first-class game?
  • Done, and tweaked to say first-class.
  • What was the qualification rule that would have enabled him to play Test cricket for Australia, had he been chosen instead of Kellaway?
To the best of my knowledge, there was no hard-and-fast rule, it was just considered "not done". At least one press report suggests that he would have played for England in 1921 but was not considered eligible as he had played for Australian teams. That is blatantly rubbish but shows the way that Test rules were flexible. There is also the case of Ranji in 1896 which shows that there were no rules, just gut feelings.
  • "may have wanted to leave South Australia" → "considered leaving South Australia"?
  • "he played for an Australian XI against the MCC touring team" – best clarify, for those who don't know their cricket history, that this was not a Test match, e.g. "a non-representative Australian XI"
  • On the North American tour, Cricinfo here gives full details of the first class matches, if you want to expand a bit.
  • Further controversy
  • Is it worth mentioning that the match in which he scored 354 was against the "XV of South Canterbury"?
  • "During the 1914–15 season he appeared in four first-class games for Otago, in which he scored 337 runs and took 30 wickets, before he married Anita Schmidt in Melbourne in April 1915." A non-sequitur. You shouldn't combine a summary of his cricket feats and the fact of his marriage in the same sentence. The events are quite unconnected.
  • "That November, with the First World War into its second year..." If this is November 1916, which appears to be the case, the war was in its third year.
  • Oops. My arithmetic is shot to pieces!
  • "before being posted to England prior to a posting to the Western Front." Ugly "posted...posting"
  • "He was a Rifleman in the New Zealand Rifle Brigade, but by the time he arrived it was too late to join the fighting" – again, no connection between the two clauses. Being a New Zealand rifleman had nothing to do with arriving too late to fight. Also "rifleman" should not be capitalised.
  • "While Crawford was in the army, his wife returned to live in Adelaide; it is not certain whether she remained there permanently, thus ending the marriage." This reads very oddly to me. Where did she return from? The only mention of her previously is the wedding in Melbourne, so what's the Adelaide connection? Once that's sorted out, I'd recommend you simplify the latter part: "it is not certain whether the marriage ended at this point".
  • Return to England
  • Having said he "became a coach and games master at Repton, his old school" (which seems clear enough), you contradict with: "It is unclear what his position at Repton was at this time". What's the lack of clarity?
  • "He later scored 92 against Yorkshire and playing against Kent, scored 48 not out as Jack Hobbs and he scored 96 in 32 minutes in the final innings as Surrey chased a total which seemed impossible to achieve in the little time remaining." Needs better punctuation and perhaps splitting – the repetition of "as" is also a problem. Think about rephrasing.
  • Any better?
  • The words "Married twice" are redundant
  • Style and technique
  • I would delete the words "in his study of Crawford" (Hart should have been identified long before now), and thereby avoid the close repetition of Crawford's name.

That's me done now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cliftonian thoughts

[edit]

Infobox and lead

  • Don't think we need to wikilink Surrey and England repeatedly
  • Under "Domestic team information" wouldn't it be more accurate to split his time with Surrey into 1904–09 and 1919-21? Also why don't we mention Otago?
  • In a related point I think it is slightly unfair to say in the opening sentence that he "mainly played for Surrey" and then not mention South Australia until three paragraphs in—unless I have misunderstood he was at Surrey for six seasons and at South Australia for four. It is true that he played about five times as many first-class matches for Surrey as he did for South Australia, so I won't push this too much, but in my humble opinion opening by saying he "mainly played for Surrey and South Australia" would be fairer.
  • We say in the opening paragraph that he was "highly regarded from an early age" and then open the second paragraph by saying he "established a reputation as an outstanding cricketer while still a schoolboy". I would recommend adapting the second of these and putting it in place of the first. We can then take the sentence about playing with glasses and put that at the start of the second paragraph.
  • I think the third paragraph would be better split into two, perhaps around where he is conscripted.

Early life and career

  • Why don't we say who Vivian and Reginald played for? Perhaps in a footnote if it's too intrusive. (Vivian played for Surrey and Leics, Reginald played for Leics)
  • Unless I am mistaken it is extremely unusual for one to play county cricket at 17. Was this the case then as well?
  • Less so then than now. Perhaps uncommon but not surprising. I've no source which says so, but his impact seems to have been more unusual than his selection, and I could source plenty of schoolboy cricketers in this period if required. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "It is not certain why Wisden mentioned South Africa; his only known connection came through his uncle, who had left South Africa five years before this" would be better in a footnote. Perhaps also make clear according to whom the only known connection was this uncle. ("according to Hart, the only known connection came through his uncle ..." or similar)

Tour to South Africa

  • Perhaps make clear he was making his Test debut for England (some might be reading quickly and miss the explanatory footnote regarding MCC/England).
  • Perhaps mention that Close's record still stands.

Surrey cricketer

  • Does his record for youngest player to complete the double still stand? If not, how long did it stand? (since this is not directly relevant this may be better relegated to a footnote.)
  • Being an amateur, he played for the Gentlemen, right?

Tour to Australia

  • "and another was not selected despite strong claims" if he was a first-choice player and had been playing well, why did they not pick this chap?
  • I would recommend splitting the second paragraph here, it's a little long; perhaps at "In the third match ..."

Dispute with Surrey

  • I've copy-edited a bit here

Cricket in South Australia

  • When did he arrive in Oz?
  • If they granted him an exception to play for South Australia without fulfilling the residency period, why wasn't he eligible for the Australian Test team? What was the precedent for him to ignore the residency period? What were the requirements at the time for him to play for Australia?

Further controversy

  • "In first-class games on this tour he took 21 wickets" The last person we've mentioned is Sims, make clear this is Crawford we're talking about
  • Don't need to wl Trumper again
  • Who was Anita Schmidt? Any details?
  • "Wellington's cricket team" why not just Wellington?

Return to England

  • I split a paragraph here
  • Perhaps make clearer when we say "In all first-class cricket" that we mean over his entire career

Style and technique

  • copy-edited a bit here

Hope all this helps. Great article, very well done. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, as ever. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photos

[edit]

A couple of photos have been added, but I don't think that the one of The Oval taken in 2008 (was it?) is relevant enough to be worth including. If a photo of the ground from during Crawford's playing career could be found it would be much better. I'm also a little uncertain whether it's worth having a photo of the Adelaide Oval from almost a decade before Crawford played on the ground. JH (talk page) 16:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too bothered either way; maybe an older photo would be better of the Oval, if one exists. I'll have a look. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added both of these pictures. I know the one of The Oval is very new but I don't think it really matters that much—the Gas holders were there much the same in Crawford's time and the players wore the same all-white kit then as they do now, so I think in the absence of a more contemporary picture it is better than nothing (the reader will probably understand implicitly the advertising hoardings, seats etc would have been less prominent in Crawford's day). The Adelaide Oval picture I think adds nicely to the article tone. Admittedly I am not an expert but I don't imagine it would have changed much in the eight years between the photograph and Crawford's arrival. In my opinion it adds more than it takes away. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

[edit]
  • Overall, the comments already posted have clearly had a positive effect. The article reads smoothly to me for the most part, and is mostly there already. I did see a few points to be improved here and there, though.
    • Early life and career: Considering that Crawford is being labeled as "the best ever schoolboy cricketer", I feel like there might be a thing or two more to say about this aspect of his career. Is there anything in particular that made him have a great impact or "create chaos", other than his pure skill.
    • Tour to Australia: I don't understand the first part of "In the event, the final game in the series was Crawford's last Test", because it looks like this was his last Test, period.
    • Dispute with Surrey: "and also that he became a less accurate bowler through trying too hard to spin the ball." The "also" could be removed as a redundant word.
    • Sarastro told me that he thought the article was choppy, and I think this section may be a strong reason for why he feels that way. We start off with a straight summary of his 1908 cricket performances, then go to a mix of cricket and off-field intrigue. After this, the dispute with Surrey takes center stage for the rest of the section. Any time a mixture of content is included in a section like this, there's going to be some bouncing around, but it's quite noticeable here. Perhaps the section could be split right before Alverstone's letter, to better categorize the content. That's the simplest fix I can think of. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Crawford (cricketer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jack Crawford (cricketer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military service

[edit]

Jack Crawford's military file may be viewed online at Archives NZ. It merely notes that he 'failed to qualify' (for what is not specified), and was returned to the ranks. Huttoldboys (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Crawford_(cricketer)&oldid=1264591681"