Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bodyline

Bodyline

Former FA, (very) recently defeatured because of lack of inline citations, now fixed. Outstanding prose of a quality rarely encountered in WP, useful and enlightening illustrations and a sound retelling of the complex story of one of those exceptionally rare occasions where sporting controversy leads to serious political ramifications - in this case, just about averted. --Dweller 09:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Concerns raised at FAR were subsequently addressed. Sandy (Talk) 09:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Deserves its title back. Has proper citations now. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A comprehensive and entertaining read. jguk 12:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Ouch! --Xtreambar 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice restoration work and in such a short time too. Jay32183 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the FAR criteria have been fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a restore of FA. One comment: the article refers to the TV miniseries as "Bodyline: It's just not cricket", whereas IMDB and the DVD cover in the article both make no reference to the subtitle? --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Ac s 4b 15:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—Needs a copy-edit throughout. Here are examples from the top.
- "several of the Laws of Cricket were changed to prevent this kind of tactic being used again"—The last three words are redundant: beautiful example.

Thanks. Fixed (although I don't think it was dreadful as it was) --Dweller 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- "that could be caught by one of several fielders located in the quadrant of the field behind square leg." Remove "located". Why is the "square leg" link piped to "Fielding" when there's a WP article on square leg? And if you're going to pipe it to "Fielding", why not to the specific section where s l is mentioned? I had to use my finder to locate it in that linked article.

Square Leg has nothing to do with cricket. Personally, I don't think that the fielding article is very good and there's no specific reference to square leg worth the mention. The best is the diagram. Anyone unfamiliar with the concept of fielding positions probably only needs to know that it is a fielding position... which the current link does admirably. --Dweller 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- "and make the ball come up into the body of the batsman"—not well expressed: "into"? Sounds like a penetration. "Make" is a little awkward; what about "so that the ball would strike the batsman's body"?
- "to fend the ball away"—fend away? Try "deflect". Tony 03:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that fend is more appropriate in this sense as we are talking about using gloves, etc at chest-neck height pushing the ball away at an awkward height. Using deflect gives the impression the batsman may have played a sublime leg glance or square cut or something... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree. Fend implies a defensive element that deflect does not. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 06:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the DVD cover needs a justification for fair use. gren グレン 08:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]