Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jonathan Agnew/archive2 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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 Raul654 21:42, 11 February 2012 [1].

Jonathan Agnew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dweller (talk) & The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting this for a second run. Although Dweller and I thought we'd copyedited it sufficiently before its previous nom, it became quickly apparent that that was not the case! Many comments later, the nom was closed due to lack of support. I believe we have covered all the main issues brought up in the previous nom and look forward to receiving further comments and suggestions this time round. Thanks, in advance, to all contributors for time and energy expended here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is looking really good now and a lot of work seems to have gone into it. Very comprehensive and representative of the available sources. It is almost there; some questions and comments and then I will be happy to support. Sorry if any of these seem fussy or nit-picky, and feel free to disagree. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comments to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jonathan Agnew/archive2 to reduce clutter on the page. Please revert if there is a problem with this. All my comments were either addressed or not something that required action and none affected my support below. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, inclined to support: I've struck the comments which have been directly addressed. Most of the others are personal preference and I have no problem with them as such., but I have not struck them in case others want to chip in. The only remaining issues I have are with the Tyson ref and use of WP:INTEXT, while I've replied with further points to a few of the other things. I would like reassurance on the dirt-in-pocket and judgements on his effectiveness as a broadcaster, but I do not necessarily insist on action being taken before supporting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have attempted to cover most of the existing concerns, only one I can't directly solve with Dweller's input is the Tyson ref... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Thanks for your patience, all my concerns have now been dealt with. Anything unstruck does not affect my support, it merely suggests that our views diverge slightly! I do not expect anything further to be done regarding these. Great work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have been addressed, except for the small comma issue. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a few quick ones from me, since what I saw at the first FAC was taken care of...

Comments – Some comments, I have only reviewed an article once before so apologies if I in some way break the rules, or if I am being too pedantic.

  • in lede - "Agnew had a successful first-class career as a fast bowler for Leicestershire from 1979 to 1990, returning briefly in 1992." Agnew's brief return was in a limited overs match, not a first-class game. In any event the return is probably not important enough to deserve a mention here.
    • Agreed on the confusion between first-class and one-day. But I do think it would be misleading for the lead to say he finished in 1990 when he had that cameo in 1992. I'll ponder it. --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agnew's most successful seasons came toward the end of his career, after his last international match, when he had learned to swing the ball" reads as if he learnt about swinging the ball in his last international match.
  • "Following the end of his playing career" seems a clumsy phrase. Perhaps "since his playing career concluded"... or is the phrase necessary at all?
  • "Michael Henderson, one of Agnew's peers and rivals". Henderson is an opinion columnist in the newspapers - I don't think he can really be described as a rival of Agnew. They don't do the same sort of job.
  • Is it common to record the listing of his parents' marriage in a newspaper? It seems irrelevant detail to me.
  • "From the age of 16 he developed his skills as a right-arm fast bowler out of school hours at Alf Gover's cricket school at Surrey." The words "out of school hours" seem unnecessary.
  • "in time for the 1978 season" the words "in time" are superfluous.
  • "Agnew found himself bowling to..." the phrase "found himself" is too flowery, why not "Agnew bowled to" or "Agnew played against"? Good writing is straightforward.
    • Actually, I think we're trying to write engaging prose, and this is an attempt to demonstrate that it was something of a shock for a young player to face such a veteran professional in his debut. You could just say "bowled to" but it would lose all sense of prominence. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the phrase "found itself" is an ugly one. It suggests it was some sort of surprise to Agnew that he found himself playing or found Lloyd in the opposition, neither of which would have been at all surprising to him. The surprise element was that vhe bowled so well as is made clear in the words that follow. I don't find it engaging, but obviously it is not a major issue. Dean B (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had taken just six first-class wickets" - shouldn't the "just" be "only"?
  • "The award afforded him the opportunity" - again this seems too flowery. "As the prize, he spent..." is more straightforward.
  • "Agnew's career did not initially live up to his early promise" "- I think "Initially, Agnew's career did not live up to its early promise" would be more grammatical.
  • Under the test cricket section there is a wikified reference to the term "blackwash". The link doesn't really describe the origin of the term which is a reference to the colour of the West Indian players. I suspect it isn't a phrase that would be used today, but in any event I don't think it's necessary here, it has no relevance to Agnew's story. "to avoid losing all five tests in the series" would be more meaningful for the reader.
    • Referenced "blackwash" with regard to this series. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the reference doesn't explain what a blackwash is. I think it is confusing for the reader who doesn't understand this jargon and you really need to know a lot about cricket to know what this means. I also feel uncomfortable with the racial overtones. Dean B (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the reference corroborates that it was "known as" the "blackwash" and the wikilink to the specific game in the series gives it context. It's not our job to censor Wikipedia, so while I'm sure we're all uncomfortable with the tone, it is an important phrase and an important part of cricket history here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was immediately dropped again from the side..." I think "subsequently" would be better than "immediately".
  • Under "playing style and career summary" the paragraph about his batting seems to be overly generous about his batting ability. I have no problem with mentioning his highest score, but surely it should be in the context that Agnew spent most of his career at 10 or 11 in the batting order. At least his FC average - 11 - should be recorded here.
    • Agreed, we should mention his average - which is far better than the rabbit reputation he's developed on TMS would suggest. I don't really have a good source for him being a 10/11. --Dweller (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His first duty was to cover England's 1990–91 Ashes tour" - this is incorrect, he covered that tour for the Today newspaper, not for the BBC. As noted earlier in the paragraph, he joined the BBC in 1991, not 1990.
  • "In 2007, Martin-Jenkins cited Agnew as the sports journalist he most respects". If you look at the reference Martin-Jenkins says he respects all his fellow cricket correspondents, and Agnew. He doesn't name Agnew as the single journalist he most respects.
  • Under "private life and personality", "when they worked together on BBC radio Leicestershire", I think Radio should have a capital R.

Again, apologies if this is all too pedantic, but I was reluctant to edit the page myself directly, given its nomination here and my relative inexperience. Dean B (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are excellent, and helpful and I agree with many of them. Thank you. Please do check back in when we've finished going through them. --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good writing is, indeed, straightforward. Thanks for your comments. You are, as always (and with any article), welcome to engage in editing. Indeed, new eyes on an article are very welcome as it becomes something of a chore to repeatedly review the same prose so anything you'd like to do to the article (obviously, beyond a radical overhaul!) would be welcome. Hopefully between me and Dweller, we can address your immediate concerns. Again, cheers for your interest and detailed review comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dean, all of your comments should now be addressed. Thank you for your time, contribution and homework! --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. My main objection from the previous FAC remains: inappropriate inclusion of the "leg over" incident in the lead section. I also had several other points during the previous FAC. While all my points have been "responded to", I have a few ongoing disagreements with The Rambling Man. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, thanks. I don't see anything "ongoing" there, just matters of taste that we presumably will just disagree on. Also, it should be noted that Dweller asked in your link "I think all of Axl's comments have been responded to. If I've missed one, please let me know. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)" to which you didn't respond. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the following comments:

  • I, too, have expressed criticism concerning the "leg-over" incident in the lead. I still have reservations about this, but not to the extent of opposing on these grounds. TRM and Dweller are experienced and responsible editors, and if their judgement is at odds with mine, well, that sometimes happens.
  • I have a further reservation about the use of File:Vivian richards crop.jpg. In my resolution, Richards's features are barely discernible; it could be a picture of anyone. With further editing of the image for brightness and contrast it should be possible to get a version in which Richards becomes recognisable; have you tried this? At present, I doubt that the image is worth keeping.
  • For some reason this article attracts more than its fair share of attention from minor copyeditors. Most of these suggestions are useful but many are very minor, and much of these long tracts of comment should I think be transferred to the article's talkpage rather than lengthening this FAC page indefinitely.
    • Agreed, of course we welcome all comments but FAC's refusal to use templates which allow compression of text mean that this has already reached extreme TL;DR length in a week. More than happy to take comments on this FAC's talk page or the article talk page or, indeed, on my or Dweller's user talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agnew is rather more interesting as a man than he was as a cricketer. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely true. And what's more, once we've got this featured, we'll let him know and see what he has to say about it on TMS, he has mentioned his Wikipedia article a few times in the past, so it'll be interesting! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now This is a very good article, but goes off the rails towards the end I'm afraid. — Nick-D 07:17, January 29, 2012 — continues after insertion below
    • The coverage of Agnew's personal life and playing and broadcasting career is excellent, and I have only the following minor comments on it:
    • However, the last 'Broadcasting controversies' and '"Leg over" incident' sections really need a lot of work.
      • For starters, the concept of 'controversy' sections is generally frowned upon. The material they contain should be integrated into other sections.
        • Frowned on by whom? If it's MOS, I've missed it. There have been a number of FACs with controversy sections in them, from memory. The material could be moved elsewhere, but I'm loathe to do so - it adds colour to a biography and helps prevent accusations of hagiography - a common FAC accusation. --Dweller (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • While it's an essay, Wikipedia:Criticism is widely accepted and seems to be common sense. You can easily integrate this material into the article without labeling the incidents 'controversies' (particularly as none of the incidents are particularly controversial). Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, I've given this a lot of thought, and I'm genuinely unsure what to do. You're right, some of these are not really controversies and that's what's made me rethink. However, I do like them sitting separate from the the history of his progression as a journalist, because it helps the reader find what he's looking for - and that includes the leg-over which is so very well-known far beyond cricket circles. I'm thinking of retitling the subsection "Notable broadcasting incidents", as by definition, they're all incident and notable. And that's about as NPOV as I can get it. Sadly, it's also rather bland. Any views before I make the change? --Dweller (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is Agnew's comments about all the British cricket media being banned from Zimbabwe a 'controversy'?
      • Likewise, what was 'controversial' about Agnew's interview with Michael Vaughan or comments about Michael Atherton? These kind of incidents seem perfectly normal for professional sports broadcaster, as they invariably interview people who make fools of themselves and are encouraged to state their opinion on various matters
        • The Vaughan interview was included at the request of an FAC reviewer, last time. The Atherton comments are not included as a controversy, but for context. --Dweller (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not suggesting that these incidents not be included. My concern is that they're in a section labeled 'Broadcasting controversies' when there's nothing particularly controversial about them. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does the 'Leg over incident' really need three paragraphs? It could be cut down to a single paragraph (eg, he said it, it was funny, and it was voted the most popular of nine options in one phone-in or internet poll).
      • What's the purpose of the paragraph detailing several other double entendres? Part of Agnew's charm as a commentator is that he's often very funny, and I don't see why these incidents should be highlighted. It would be much better to have a paragraph discussing how Agnew uses humour to lighten up his commentary as it's an important part of his success as a broadcaster. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I'm aware there are some outstanding issues raised by Nick-D. I plan to get to them tomorrow or Tuesday. RL has been very busy of late. Nick, apologies it's taking so long. It's partly because your points are good ones, lol. --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I've completed my review of your comment by greatly reducing the length of the leg-over section, including downgrading the other innuendo comments to mere references of Agnew's occasional love of innuendo and cutting back on some of the extra detail about the match and the commuters. I hope that meets you at least half way. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Just quick checks on references

Images appear unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some problems with prose; for example, in "Agnew has been known to laugh at or include occasional sexual innuendo, while on-air. The most notable of these occurred in August 1991, when Agnew was commentating with Brian Johnston", it's not clear what "these" referred to, and "laugh at or include" sounds distinctly awkward. Ucucha (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that does sound pretty nasty. We'll get onto a rephrase for that. Is that the only problem or do you see other major prose problems? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's slipped the proofreading net because I just caused it a day or two ago, fixing the last of the issues raised here. Whoops. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I found a few other things that I fixed myself, enough that I'm not quite convinced that the prose is up to the standards. I haven't had time to read the entire article, though, and won't until Monday at least. Ucucha (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That missing comma and mistaken en-dash? I've run a script over for remaining en-dashes (there weren't any, and I directly blame Dweller for adding the one you found!) so hopefully no further problems. Look forward to your additional comments as-and-when. P.S. any chance you could do a source spot check? I asked Sandy if she could or if she could recommend someone but no luck there. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.