Talk:Ray Lindwall

Caption query

The caption on one of the images has Lindwall dismissing PBH May in the 1950-51 Ashes , when May didn't play in this series?

Phanto282 (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be Test 1, 1954-55. Tintin 02:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"In Australia's second innings, Lindwall scored the fastest half-century in Ashes history. He took just 48 minutes to reach the mark, with two sixes and five fours."

It must be wrong. Tintin 03:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Promoted

I've decided to promote this article to good article status. It only takes one look to recognise that it is a well written and heavily referenced and researched article. One small issue is the order of the headings. I think that "Style" should be below the parts on his career, before "Later years". But if this is an accepted way of doing this in WikiProject Cricket, then thats fine. Just a suggestion :). And well done on a great article! Grover (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RL infobox

Should his rugby league infobox not fall in immediately after the cricket one, so as to not infer inferiority.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ray Lindwell's lead section page issue

MzubanziKeseni05 (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Hello everyone. I was reading through Ray Lindwell's biography, a former Australian cricketer who has achieved quite a number of record breaks as far as his bowling in his career. But i couldn't help but notice a notification in his page about an error in his lead section. Apparently it is quite long. So I was wondering if it would be appropriate for me to resolve this issue.

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and saw that the article is quite long and detailed. This includes the lead, which has had a "lead too long" banner since 2023. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Ray Lindwall

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Consensus exists that this article does not meet the standards of GA. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This article has too much information to be an effective article, and thus does not follow WP:SS and WP:TOOBIG. The article also has lots of very long paragraphs (such as one paragraph for the "Style" section) which needs to be formatted much more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It needs to be rewritten with much less detail, and restructured with frequent paragraph breaks. As it stands, it is not well-written and fails GACR#1. Jack (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.