Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Ian Meckiff/archive1

902:"Meckiff started his district career with South Melbourne in Victorian Premier Cricket in the 1951–52 season, where he switched to fast bowling, having failed in an audition at Richmond in 1950". The multiple clauses in the above sentence seem to be wrongly ordered and the information is incomplete. How did he fail? And is "audition" the best word here – surely "trial" is what is meant? The sentence might be restructured along the lines: "Having failed as a spin bowler in a trial at Richmond in 1950, Meckiff switched to fast bowling in 1951–52 when he began his district career in Victoria Premier Cricket with South Melbourne." – or something similar. This would work if you dropped "at South Melbourne" from the next sentence. 906:"By the age of 17, Meckiff was in the senior team and played in South Melbourne's first championship-winning team, although his career was often interrupted by national service." The "although" connector is inappropriate since the third clause is unrelated to the other two. The third clause is also vague; "his career was often interrupted..." – for how long did these interruptions go on? Does national service mean military service? For clarity's sake you need a sentence along the lines of: "However, the early part of his career was disrupted by the demands of military service." If you can date his service, so much the better. 808:: I'm sorry, but there are serious issues with the prose. The lead reads well, but thereafter I found problem after problem. I gave up early in the Early career section, skimmed and found other problems later on. Judging by the edit history this article has not been copyedited by an independent editor; such a copyedit, covering the whole article is essential. My opinion is that this can't be done during the duration of this FAC. I enjoy cricket articles, and the Meckiff case is fascinating. I would volunteer to do the copyediting myself if the article were withdrawn for a couple of weeks. Here are my detailed comments:- 1247:

could be improved. So your comments about the state of article were fair, but I've gone through the article again, at the same rate as usual, this one took longer as it was longer than the normal articles and I don't think I'm rushing it, so how does it look now? I wasn't falling asleep when I did the original but obviously something didn't go so good this time. I don't want to withdraw because I've been able to get the job done before and I'm always grateful for anyone who volunteers to copy-edit for me, as I hardly consider it to be exciting, but was your offer conditional on throwing in the towel.

1890:

sentence that is the real problem: "Meckiff took a total of 4/32 and saw Australia to their target with three wickets in hand, finishing unbeaten on two." Anyone with limited cricket knowledge would find that impossible to work out. Somehow Meckiff's bowling and batting performances, and the Australian side's overall performance, have all become tangled up in the syntax. I was left wondering why such an inconsequential match deserved any space at all - it's hardly a highlight or turning point in Meckiff's career.

1863:- I've been through the whole thing by now. I tried to focus on the Meckiff naming issue, and other grammar and MoS things I saw. "Meckiff" is definitely written a lot, but any further rewording I could think of would have confused meaning. Brian and Graham: Another look is probably warranted. However, since I didn't make large (or even middling) changes, I might not have had an eye for what you were seeing. I just changed what I thought needed changing. -- 198:. What made his case more interesting and gossipy among the cricket writers of the time was that there were rumours that the Australian authorities considered him to be illegitimate but that they decided to allow him to play so that the umpire could sanction him in public and make a "sacrificial goat" out of him, to show that Australia were tough on illegal bowling. He was also famous for being the player 1143:"This meant that during the 1961 Australian tour to England, there would be an amnesty period at the summer during which the umpires would privately report concerns about bowling actions to the respective teams to remediate." First, there are two "durings" in the sentence, secondly the words "at the summer" are redundant (and oddly phrased), thirdly the verb is "remedy" not "remediate". 1938:- I agree with Brian in that there are still problems with the prose. Anyone not well-versed in the jargon of cricket will not be able to understand much of this article. To some extents, the use of this jargon is difficult to avoid, but some effort should be made. Jargon aside, ugly prose remains, and here are some of many examples: 1903:"During the summer, Meckiff's bowling was passed by Col Egar, who later ended his career." Since Egar hasn't been mentioned since the lead you should explain who he was. Rephrasing is necessary anyway, as gramattically, "who later ended his career" refers to Egar. There is more pronoun confusion in the sentence that follows. 1886:: My problem at present is sheer lack of time to spend the hours necessary to complete the copyediting task. Laser brain and Anonymous Dissident have been helpful, but there seems to me still plenty that needs fixing in the remaining sections. Here are just a few examples from the latter part of the article:- 323:-- Looking fwd to finding time to review in detail what I know will be a fine article on a very interesting player, however just reading the lead could I ask you to again review/revise repetition of the guy's name, which for instance occurs 5 times in the 7 sentences of the second para alone... Cheers, 1679:

sorry. I don't think the prose is FA standard; it's difficult to give examples because the problems are more to do with style and logical flow than grammar. I know that objections have been raised regarding repetition of the Meckiff's name, but the decision to use, indeed overuse, "the Victorian" and

1111:

The "abuse" supposedly started after the Melbourne Test when Meckiff was just 24. His son can't have been out of the kindergarten; kids that age don't "abuse", they may tease or call names. But it is beyond my belief, anyway, that a chap who had just taken 6/36 for his country would find his children

1739:

Yes, "the Victorian" is very confusing to those not familiar with the subject. "Victorian" is also used to refer to the team, which doesn't help. "Meckiff" is used about 126 times, (not counting quotations), and "Victorian" about 33 times and the very odd term "the Meckiff" is used once, so there is

1270:

No ultimatum intended, it's just that I am very busy and don't know whether I have that much time to spare during the remaining duration of this FAC. However, you have obviously done further work, so I'll try and read through the rest in the next few days, fixing what I can, and see what transpires.

915:

You have added good explanatory material, but a further tweak is needed in the initial sentence. Does "By the age of 17" refer to his playing in the championship-winning team, or was that a little later? Presumably you can clarify by adding the season in which the championship as won. Also, to avoid

1438:

of throwing for Australia in the Tests. Neither Slater nor Rorke played in the first two Tests (Slater played in the third, Rorke in the fourth and fifth). We are dealing with the fall-out from the second Test at this point, so Wellings's comments are out of sequence. Also, Laker was not a "former"

375:

Thanks for addressing the general name repetition point but I also note that the first six paragraphs of Early Career begin with "Meckiff", which is also a bit wearing. It's perfectly reasonable IMO to mention the subject's name in the first sentence of a new paragraph but perhaps not always as the

1716:

Are you saying that Victorian is confusing because of the historical era, or that one should be plain and just use name/he/she everywhere instead of using things like right-hander, describing people as "the captain/chairman/bowler" which may yield more variety like in book prose, but may slow down

1893:

Alteration to the throwing law: I think "compromise" rather than "settlement" is the word you need. The settlement, surely, was the agreed alteration to the law, the compromise being not to bring it fully into effect during the 1961 tour. There are other uncertainties in the section: "the umpires

1246:

I have always self-copyedited my articles since 2008, and generally have been self-sufficient as far as the FACs not being terminally ill. I've done it more than 20 times, and am pretty sure I went through the same process each time, but when I read a second time, I did find a lot of things that

1920:

thoroughly. The article has been here for three weeks now; would YM reconsider my earlier suggestion of a temp. withdrawal from FAC so the work can be done properly without time constraints, and would Sandy agree a dispensation whereby the article could be renominated before the 4-week timelag?

1149:

I found some of the section headings odd and unencyclopedic, for example: "Peak and eruption of chucking row" (ambiguous and slangy); "Alterations of the throwing law" (Either "Alterations to" or Alteration should be singular); "No balled in the Sheffield Shield" (No-balled requires a hyphen);

1889:

Subcontinent tour: "He then helped the tourists avoid a defeat..." In cricket you don't usually refer to a victory as "avoiding defeat". That phrase is used when an outplayed team somehow manages to scrape a draw (think England against Australia at Cardiff last summer). However, it's the next

1439:

English spinner at this stage—he played in the match. I also suspect that most of the comments in the paragraph beginning "By contrast..." are post-series, not reactions to the second Test. The Pollard quote is too short for a blockquote and should be incorporated with the main text.

984:"At the time, the two states were by far the strongest in Australia, having placed first and second 18 times out of 20 in the past 10 years". Word missing between "having" and "placed". Placed first and second in what? And 20 competions in 10 years needs explaining. 1482:"Such headlines relegated the Cold War, which usually occupied the front pages, to the interior of the newspapers." Which newspapers - Australian, English? Strikes me as a loose generalisation which is most unlikely to be entirely true. I would omit this. 1682:

The Victorian generated his pace from an unusual bent-arm action which involved a flick of the wrist, and it was in front of his home crowd in the Second Test of the 1958–59 season against England at the Melbourne Cricket Ground that he reached his

963:

Second paragraph: "The South Melbourne bowler made his first-class debut..." No reason not to name him, thus: Meckiff made his first-class debut..." The following words "in a match" are redundant. "Coming in" should be extended to "Coming in to

1744:

that it has been only written for other fans of Australian cricket, and not for a general audience. I don't like the esoteric, and often tabloid style of the prose. I stand by my initial reaction and still think a fresh pair of eyes is needed.

1075:"He reported that his son was verbally abused by classmates"; Meckiff was 24 in 1958-59 - was his son actually old enough to be "verbally abused" by classmates? Do you train 'em that early in Australia? Or is this something that happened later? 398:-- can you just confirm for me that your source spells out that continuing to pick him implied that the selectors regarded his action as legal, i.e. that last bit is not your own (understandable) interpretation of his continued selection? 686:: 1 image, which is actually a graph. Marked as GFDL/CC-by-SA, though you should probably put your name in there as the author rather than just in the uploader spot. The image should also be moved to Commons. Caption looks good. -- 401:

I know the expression "breaking down" as applied to bowlers but be as well to explain just what his problem was; the average reader might even suspect a nervous rather than a physical breakdown, given the controversy... Cheers,

1701:. Why use the metaphor and not simply say "bowlers' throwing was becoming a problem"? The whole article suffers from this and I think the nominator would be wise to accept any offers of an independent copy-edit. 1324:

I have been changing most of the repetitive descriptions of "The Victorian", "the left-arm paceman", etc. to "Meckiff". I think the balance is OK, but it probably requires the judgement of another pair of

1112:

being mocked in this way. Surely it would be the whingeing Poms getting the abuse? It sounds to me as though Meckiff was having his own retrospective whinge in 1961, playing for sympathy. But let it pass.

969:...with the score at 8/77..." needs amplification as this is the first mention of a team's score. Suggest: "with his side 8 wickets down for 77 runs". The short form can be used thereafter in the article. 1908:

No-balled in the Sheffield Shield: Repetitious phrasing: "Despite these performances, Meckiff was overlooked for the First Test" followed by "Despite this effort, he was overlooked for the Second Test".

832:

The sudden jump from him playing cricket aged 11 to his working as a hardware salesman is jarring. You need a transitional phrase, e.g "After leaving school Meckiff worked as a hardware salesman..."

470:-- I assume its the brother who was unable to take the brother's place in the team, but grammatically it looks like the brother was unable to take Ian's place, which doesn't really make sense; also 822:"He routinely dominated the opposition batsmen in the competition..." Can you say what competition this was, and also if the 200 wickets was a single season's haul or spread over several years? 150: 145: 979:"...and then took 3/45 to restrict Western Australia to a 34-run first innings lead." Again, for first mention of a bowler's analysis the figures should be explained: 3 wickets for 45 runs. 1336:

Second paragraph: how does Bailey's dismissive comment mark "the start of rumblings about the bowler's action"? (Incidentally this was the match of Bailey's infamous 8-hour innings for 68)

754:

Subcontinent tour: "Over the next two years, sceptics and sporting opponents mostly regarded his action was fair". Should "was" be "as"? (Not sure if this is used in Australia)

1230:

I can see that an enormous amount of work has gone into this article, but at the moment the prose falla a long way short of FA standard. Please consider my offer above.

1183:"Peak and start of throwing controversy" is still ambiguous. It should be "Career peak and...". The words "against Meckiff" are unnecessary in the "conspiracy heading. 1572:

Doing my best, but this doesn't look like something that can be done properly within the context of a normal FAC. Temporary withdrawal looks like the best option.

997:

Tweaked all these things. I thought the reference to 20 was clear as there are ten seasons and there are two teams to come first and second, but I've reworded it

1160:

Changed. I Changed it to allegations of a conspiracy, as "conspiracy theories" usually means some crackpot-type thing, but many mainstream pundits claimed this.

1916:; I've not done a proper check. Having spent so much time on it I'd like to see the job through and the article promoted, but this can't be done quickly 40: 1958:

The Australian Board of Control were so concerned that chairman Dowling and Bradman both attended the meeting of the Imperial Cricket Conference..

1138:"In 1960, the throwing law was changed so that it stipulated that there was to be no straightening..." Try "...changed, to stipulate that..." etc 974:

The description of him as a "left-arm paceman" at this point is confusing, because it is his batting that is being described. Just "he" will do.

1328:

Unencyclopedic language: "grabs" (meaning catches); "scribes" (journalists); "outed" (named); "atop" (top of) - generally I have altered these.

1894:

would privately report..." Report to whom? "After that..." - what does "that" refer to? is it "after the tour" or "after privately reporting"?

30: 17: 1680:"the bowler" is a bad one—they are ugly and confusing. This sentence from the Lead is a good example of problems that permeate the article: 738:– Some picky stuff from the first few sections; I've read about halfway through so far. At first glance, it looks like another strong one. 396:...the selection panel of Don Bradman, Dudley Seddon and Jack Ryder continued to pick him, implying that they regarded his action as legal. 1525:

Is it even worth mentioning his 9 runs at 2.25 as part of his "successful series"? His batting was irrelevant in 1958-59 so I'd drop this.

491:-- can we clarify for what team or series Ashton was talking about? State team, test team against West Indies, anything at all? Cheers, 1317:: I have copyedited the sections to the end of the "Career peak" section, though not the lead. Here are some issues I can't settle:- 1777: 464:

is a bit of a non-sequitur and seems pretty trivial compared to the info in the first part of the sentence - do we really need it?

460:

Thanks for taking care of those and my apologies for a disjointed review, just juggling a lot of things off-wiki at the moment...

1348:

Moved to the front, as the prediction isn't related to the chucking, and the private mumbling, which didn't give anymore detail

468:

The budding paceman started at South Melbourne in the Fourth XI after his brother was unavailable and unable to take his place.

88: 83: 742:

Early career: "the left-arm paceman made 19 not out to helping Victoria reach 131". Remove last three letters from "helping".

92: 1992: 1930: 1876: 1853: 1834: 1807: 1783: 1754: 1734: 1710: 1658: 1644: 1626: 1611: 1581: 1561: 1511: 1468: 1412: 1365: 1303: 1280: 1264: 1239: 1215: 1192: 1177: 1121: 1105: 1060: 1014: 948: 925: 885: 870: 796: 769: 726: 699: 672: 658: 631: 595: 573: 545: 514: 500: 446: 411: 361: 332: 302: 292: 263: 223: 136: 1383:

asserted that the Victorian threw "the greater number of balls they deliver". It's the "they" in the quote that throws it.

641:

employs a historian with a PhD to go oversee their history project and I don't think it would be worse than a newspaper

75: 166: 1649:

Not at all - it's a good idea to have more than one editor involved, and it helps me manage my time. Please go ahead.

1983:

These are just random examples and I still think the prose is not of FA standard. Much more work is required IMHO.

1271:

The article is obviously destined for FA some time, but we ought to get it into the best possible state beforehand.

1088:

Clarified. The book was written in 1961. So even if Meckiff married and had kids at 18, the kid wasn't more than 8.

1030:"Meckiff went onto the Third Test..." This has to be either "into" or "on to". In this context "onto" makes no sense 171: 1945:

He was not called in either India or Pakistan, meaning that he had played in five nations without being sanctioned.

751:

The red link in Four Chukkas to Austrailia looks faulty. Just de-capitalizing a piped letter should turn it blue.

1544:

Done last two, although the book did sayinjury, the change may keep it ambiguous in case the source was loose

528:— One player oracle has all-rounder stats and the other one has bowling stats, yet they have the same name. — 489:

The president of the Marylebone Cricket Club Sir Hubert Ashton hoped that Australia would not select Meckiff.

1926: 1849: 1827: 1800: 1727: 1654: 1622: 1604: 1577: 1554: 1504: 1461: 1405: 1358: 1296: 1276: 1257: 1235: 1208: 1188: 1170: 1117: 1098: 1053: 1007: 941: 921: 881: 863: 789: 719: 651: 566: 439: 354: 285: 216: 129: 382:-- certainly he's notable, but since he's subject of a WP article I reckon most people would gather that. 1871: 1639: 1988: 1763: 1750: 1706: 763: 588: 538: 476:

The budding paceman started at South Melbourne in the Fourth XI after his brother was unable to play.

191: 485:

to mean its first championship-winning side, but maybe it should be spelt out for the uninitiated.

669: 628: 510: 496: 407: 328: 195: 1922: 1842: 1819: 1792: 1719: 1650: 1618: 1596: 1573: 1546: 1496: 1453: 1397: 1350: 1288: 1272: 1249: 1231: 1200: 1184: 1162: 1113: 1090: 1045: 999: 933: 917: 877: 855: 838: 781: 711: 643: 615: 558: 431: 426: 346: 277: 208: 121: 53: 1594:

I've asked Anonymous Dissident and Laser brain to copyedit the article and they have agreed.

1864: 1632: 638: 299: 260: 79: 1984: 1746: 1702: 756: 693: 580: 530: 1617:

In that case I'll leave off for the moment. Perhaps you'd buzz me when they are through.

1767: 1699:

as throwing was in the spotlight in England, where it was regarded as a growing problem

1427: 1689:, which to me has a completely different meaning to the one intended. And then comes 665: 624: 506: 492: 403: 324: 243: 1435: 1431: 247: 853:

Explained these things, and moved the hardware thing to the outside cricket part.

190:

an Australian fast bowler of the 1950s and 1960s who was very controversial, like

109: 1380: 931:

Thanks, yes I've clarified that he debuted and won the title in the same season

748:

Peak and eruption of chucking row: Don't need multiple Trevor Bailey links here.

239: 187: 71: 64: 1817:

Did another round of ce on the parts where Brian and Laser haven't copyedited

688: 1451:

REstructured general comments to the end, that weren't specific to the 6-for

623:

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.

203: 1977:

Many members of the Australian media alleged a conspiracy against Meckiff.

637:

I'm not aware of any biography of him, that would go through that but the

251: 745:

Capitalize first letter of "the fast bowler was not required to bat...".

1150:"Conspiracy?" (headings should be neutral, thus "Conspiracy theories"). 199: 344:

Done. Yes, this fellow's career was rather juicy and controversial...

1970:

There is still redundancy as in "The majority of" - I suggest "Most".

425:

Fixed, thanks for pointing out the nervous breakdown thing. Yes, Dr

39:

Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in

814:

Minor point – "late 1950s" and "early 1960s" do not require hyphens

1979:- this should be "that there was (or had been) a conspiracy...". 1960:- I think "about this" is missing but the reader is left guessing. 664:

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves.

429:

made those comments about the selection panel implying legitimacy

1717:

the reader to think? Is the comma supposed to be before "which"?

462:, and by 12, he was acting as a caddy at Kingston Heath Golf Club 376:

first word so could one or two of these be restructured slightly?

235: 1829: