Talk:Gubby Allen

Cricket Heritage.

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

Other side of the coin

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

To do

Extended content

Most of the factual "heavy lifting" is done now. Lots and lots still needed, but I think old Gubby needs a bit of time to bed in now. Remaining tasks, with an initial aim of GA (when I've had a bit of a break from him!):

• Style and technique
• Analysis of impact as administrator
• Opinions, good and bad
• Amateurs and professionals
• Serious, serious cutting and copy edit
• Bring to more reasonable length More cutting needed later
• Legacy
• Personality
• More on personal life
• Less abrupt ending
• Genuine amateur, as opposed to shamateur Gone as far as possible given sources
• More on relationship with Warner, including ups and downs (I've taken quite a bit out about this)?
• Note on his millions of operations?

Other sources:

• Social History Nothing worth having
• Wisden (esp Obituary)
• Gibson's Cricket Captains
• Gents and Players (quite a bit here, though some regurgitates Swanton)
• Bent arms and dodgy wickets (time as selector)
• Cricket at the Crossroads (D'Olly) nothing new not in Oborne/Swanton
• Anything by Trueman/Close/Anti-establishment
• Check Frith Bodyline over fast bowling selection for final Test of 1937.

GA Review

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

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

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

1: Well-written

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

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD:

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

WP:LAYOUT:

 Done

Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done

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

WP:WTW:

 Done

Check for WP:WTW:  Done

1. Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done
   • Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done
   • Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done
   • Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done
   • Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done
   • Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done
   • Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done
2. Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done
   • Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done
   • Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done
   • Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done
   • Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
3. Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done

Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done

1. Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done
   • Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done
   • Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:

 Done

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

2: Verifiable with no original research

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

WP:RS:

 Done

Check for WP:RS:  Done

Cross-checked with other FAs: Wilfred Rhodes, Douglas Jardine, Wally Hammond, Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927, Roy Kilner, George Macaulay, Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer), Adelaide leak, George Headley, George Hirst, Len Hutton, Hedley Verity, Arthur Mold, Learie Constantine, Percy Chapman, Arthur Gilligan, Percy Fender, Leg before wicket, Jack Hobbs, Archie MacLaren, Maurice Leyland, Abe Waddington

1. Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done
   • Is it contentious?: Yes
   • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
2. Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
   • Who is the author?:
   • Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
   • What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
   • What else has the author published?:
   • Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
3. Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
4. Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:

 Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done
3. Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:

 Done

1. Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done
2. Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done
3. Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

 Done

Cross-checked with other FAs: Wilfred Rhodes, Douglas Jardine, Wally Hammond, Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927, Roy Kilner, George Macaulay, Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer), Adelaide leak, George Headley, George Hirst, Len Hutton, Hedley Verity, Arthur Mold, Learie Constantine, Percy Chapman, Arthur Gilligan, Percy Fender, Leg before wicket, Jack Hobbs, Archie MacLaren, Maurice Leyland, Abe Waddington

1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
   1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
   2. Check for Out of scope:
2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
   1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
   2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
   3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
   4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
   5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:

 Done

1. Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
2. Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

1. Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done
2. Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done
3. Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
4. Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done
5. Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done
6. Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done
7. Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done
8. Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
10. Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done
11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None
13. Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (PD)

Images:

 Done

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done

1. Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done
2. Check for copyright status:  Done
3. Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done
4. Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done

1. Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done
2. Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done
3. Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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