Talk:Adam Gilchrist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Adam Gilchrist is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 28, 2007.

Mention of the 4,540-run mark of Alec Stewart's that Gilchrist passed comes from this Cricinfo article. Stewart scored several thousand more as a specialist batsman. Loganberry (Talk) 20:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Obsession with adding family details

A number of people have added family details. If we are going to do it for Gilchrist we should do it for ALL cricketers otherwise it is inconsistent. Those wishing to revert back to having Gilchrist's family members will be personally responsible for this. I seek concurrence from Turner on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.56.65.6 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 28 November 2005 UTC.

They were added quite some time ago, and you are now removing them, with no other reason than that it is inconsistent. If you really feel it is inconsistent, then add such details to other people. It is quite normal for biographical articles to include such information where it is known. JPD 11:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I have only recently come across Wikipedia and notice almost all cricketers do not have family details listed, so I believe articles should not have them. If JPD wants them he can add them, not me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.56.65.6 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 November 2005 UTC.
I just quickly looked at a few off the top of my head, and found that Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting and Don Bradman all have family details listed. At any rate, the fact that something isn't yet included for another player is not a reason to delete it here. Removing verifiable relevant information is usually considered vandalism. If you object to inconsistency, fix it constructively, rather than be deleting things. JPD 11:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
As do Michael Schumacher, Michele Timms, Brian Lara, and John Howard, This is perfectly appropriate information to have in a biographical article, if it's available. Please don't remove perfectly legitimate and appropriate content from a wikipedia article on spurious inconsistency grounds; if the inconsistency bothers you add family details, where known, to other players, and indeed other individuals, on Wikipedia. --Robert Merkel 11:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I can find just as many counter examples, Allan Border, Simon Katich, Jacques Kallis, Justin Langer , Andrew Strauss, Richie Benaud , John Eales , George Gregan, Kevin Rudd , Simon O'Donnell , Michael Costa, Philip Ruddock the list goes on and on. why should it be MY responsibility to add family details when I don't agree with the concept, if YOU want family details for ALL cricketers, you ADD it. stop deflecting the work onto others, I clearly am not interested in adding family details for others. should we then add if they are not married? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.19.11.70 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 28 November 2005 UTC.
You clearly have not understood my point. If the other articles do not have the details, it is because they are not known/no one has bothered to add them yet, not because they should not be there. Wikipedia is a work in progress and will always have inconsistencies of this sort. So that is not a good reason to delete something. You suggest now that your real reason is that you don't agree with the concept. I am not particularly interested in adding these details, but I am against removing it for no good reason. You will have to make a fairly good argument against including the information, because it is generally understood that this is perfectly relevant biographical information. JPD 12:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
no JPD, you asked me to add details for others, I am clearly not interested in that concept of adding details for others and request that you do. Why should I add info when I don't believe in the concept? and why do then you and others have to give me examples of articles with family info, I merely countered this example. if you are such a strong believer that the same info should be eventually added to others, I'm not stopping you, just that you should be consistent yourself and commence from today adding family info to other cricketers. the debate ends here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.19.11.70 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 28 November 2005 UTC.
I haven't added any family details to anything, I have simply objected to you removing it. I suggested that you add the details because your reason for removing it was "inconsistency". I didn't suggest that it was your responsibility to do this, but that this is the correct way to fix such an inconsistency. It isn't a good reason to delete material, and so, I will restore the article. I will be consistent and act in the same way towards other articles. JPD 13:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

again you are deflecting the work onto me. you clearly said in history that I should add for others. stop telling me what to do.

I tend to agree with Anonymous. I regularly see on Wikipedia things being removed for being irrelevant. what next? should we say cricketer's favourite foods? I know a couple of their favourite foods, so I'll start adding. Steven Fitter 01:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Start with the Gatting article I reckon. --LiamE 23:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with JPD, the fact that many cricketers biographies do not include family details does not mean that they should not be included - family details are I would have thought a normal part of most biographical material. What is written is brief and doesn't include anything other than immediate family - you wouldn't want to say their uncle or cousin is John or Harry or whoever (unless a relation is also notable in their own right - such as Martin Crowe/Russell Crowe). Wikipedia is a work in progress and you can't expect everything to be completely consistent - there is enough important material missing, without taking out perfectly good material - for example the Lindsay Hassett article (admittedly a stub) does not mention that he was captain of Australia - I might do some work on that article myself.Likie 03:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walking Controversy Section

Must admit I am baffled by this section. As far as I'm concerned there has been no suggestion that Gilchrist's walking had anything to do with Ponting being chosen as captain. When Ponting was made ODI captain it was generally regarded as being because opening batsman, wicketkeeper and captain would be too much for one player to take on. Further, the reason that Ponting was made test vice-captain after the World Cup was that he was clearly heir-apparent by that stage and, in fact, Gilchrist was reported as having requested that Ponting replace him as v-c. In my opinion the entire section is misleading and should be removed in so far as it links his walking to his not being made permanent captain. Opinions? Shadow007 06:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's at best speculative, and we shouldn't throw allegations around like that. Feel free to rewrite it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have re-written it removing the inference that the walking incidents affected his captaincy chances. However, I still feel a section talking about the captaincy is worthwhile although I don't think it should draw any parallels with the walking issue as, like you said, it's at best speculative and, in my opinion, has zero credibility. Shadow007 11:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when has an action that has long been regarded as 'good sportmanship' been regarded as controversial? This section needs to be reworded to emphasise that walking is a positive sporting action rather than a negative one. Macgruder 10:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not our place to say whether it is positive or negative. It generated controversy, so we report that. JPD (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the language used does not suggest that. "Gilchrist has not shied from controversy in his international career, igniting the 'walking debate' by walking" .
He walked and there is controversy, but the opening suggests that he courts it, and the choice of 'igniting' to describe his actions is inflammatory(ha!). The paragraph should be primarily about walking, not about controversy. Practically everything in the world generates some controversy somewhere. That doesn't mean that they need to be included in a controversy section. The section should be called 'Walking' not 'controversy'. After all it's not a list of controversies is it - there is just the one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macgruder (talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Drive for GA/FA

Hello, this is just a note to say that this article has been selected by WP:CRICKET as an article which should be either a good or featured article by the start of the forthcoming Cricket World Cup. As such, I'll be tagging all original research with the typical {{Fact}} tag. I would encourage all editors to work towards making this article as good as it can be, including citing all claims of notability in accordance with the WP footnote policy. Let's get the party started. The Rambling Man 21:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Is this really a "High" importance article for cricket?
  • No, I don't think so. But in the words of OJ Simpson, "I didn't do it..."! Happy to downgrade that to Mid. The Rambling Man 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If Gilly's a walker, we should have dozens of examples, so the list we have is not exhaustive. On that basis, it should be for the most notable examples - and it's not. Can we prune it down please?
  • Agreed, notable, controversial walks should be described, other than that we can use half a dozen or more references to other instances. The Rambling Man 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In the lead we have two nicknames... and then a third. Is the third in widespread usage, or is it a one-off?
  • Yeah, the source of "Demolition Man" isn't exactly great (India Times)... happy to comment it out for now. The Rambling Man 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a few issues from me. --Dweller 11:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the third is a one-off and shouldn't be there in the article. Even the first two should be moved somewhere to the middle of the article. The opening sentence is quite bad, actually. Tintin 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Change it to something more palatable Mr President! The Rambling Man 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
My writing skills are almost zero, which is why I only offer comments and almost never rewrite what others have written ! Tintin 12:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm happy with whatever contribution you make, as it's usually expert and razor sharp. --Dweller 12:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've re-written the lead with a couple of new citations and some wikilinks. Actually, something sprung to mind, we can use the List of cricket terms to see which terms can be straight wiki-linked to (e.g. out) - this ought to help with the anti-jargonists and non-cricket-lovers understanding of the article. The Rambling Man 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

Can I suggest we mirror the Paul Collingwood structure? Also, the last sentence of Domestic should probably be rehashed and moved into International. --Dweller 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That was going to be my plan, assuming Colly made it to FA! The Rambling Man 14:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Although not necessarily a reliable source, this may be helpful for inspiration... The Rambling Man 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

There's this one being used on the Australian national cricket captains page:

, which we could use. The Rambling Man 14:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's great - maybe for ODI section as he's wearing pyjamas. --Dweller 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tidying

Want to put all the records, awards etc into Achievements section. Consensus? What's the origins of the nickname "Church"? Is it a gag on the last six letters of his surname? --Dweller 15:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, achievements section does it for me. Gather ye, and redeposit... The Rambling Man 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

I think we need to decide on a consistent titling for the Northern hemisphere winter season... e.g. 2005-06 or 2005/06 etc. --Dweller 11:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA - Blnguyen's oppose

I'm posting here a reformatted version of Blnguyen's oppose !vote, so the issues can be dealt with individually. Any mistakes in the reformatting are my fault - I'll ask Blnguyen to check. --Dweller 11:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. There is no mention of his 2000 elevation to vice-captaincy after the Nursegate-Warney scandal.
    • There is now, although not using "Nursegate" which I found hard to cite. It was fun reading about Warney's bad behaviour...!The Rambling Man 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. There is a complete blackout on the 2000/01 Australian season, where he captained one Test in Adelaide when Waugh was injured.
    • Okay, so blackout removed, no massive coverage but inclusion of the star moment, when he captained his first test, some comments from him and a good citation. The Rambling Man 21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. No coverage of March 2001 tour to India.
    • Tour now covered including his king pair in the second test, tee-hee The Rambling Man 11:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. So basically there is a big gap of 18 months from early 2000 to mid 2001 Ashes series. He captained another Test at Headingley when Waugh was injured. This is not mentioned, when he let England have a target of 300 on the last day and they made it easily.
    • Hopefully considerably more covered now but will add info re:Headingley test into the Ashes 2001 section The Rambling Man 13:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Now covers his second single-Test captaincy and the surprising loss to England. The Rambling Man 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. No mention of 2001/02 Australian season. This was when they tried to get Hayden into the ODI team, and rotated Gilchrist Waugh and Hayden in the opening slots. Both Waugh and Gilchrist went out of form < 20 average for the season; Waugh borthers dropped, most successful Australian ODI opening combo broke up.
    • 2001-02 season now covered although not in the detail described above. Fine, mention rotation of openers with Hayden, but the Waugh brothers out etc would be better in the Waugh brothers articles in my opinion. The Rambling Man 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Elevation of Ponting to captaincy ahead of Gilchrist, the incumbent VC is not mentioned.
    • Okay, so maybe unusual but not that amazing. Can you provide a nice citation as to why this is more notable than just interesting, in other words, some citation of controversy? Thanks. The Rambling Man 17:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. 2002/03 Australian season not mentioned.
  8. 2003/04 season not mentioned...many gaps in the coverage.
  9. He was also fined by ICC/ACB for pubilcly condeming Murali at a sponsorship function somewhere.
    • Captured his reprimand by the ACB for having a dig at Murali's suspect action. The Rambling Man 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Many seasons have little/no account.
    • For a player of his longevity of career, I don't think we need to cover every season or indeed every series. Covering his key career highs, lows and milestones is right for a biog here. This preserves readability, gives a narrative for the guy's career and is appropriate for Wikipedia, rather than (the fictional) "Cricketpedia". If any key moments are missing, they should be completed, but otherwise we can afford lacunae that don't add to the story. This is my opinion and I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise. --Dweller 13:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment originally by Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Gilchrist's form slumped, making a rare king pair (two golden ducks in the same match) in the Second Test in Kolkata and scoring just two in his two innings in Chennai. --> Not sure whether 'form slumped' is a fair comment of what happened. In Mumbai, he had used his slog sweep very successfully against the spinners (though he was dropped early on by SS Das off a top edge). He kept trying the same shot in the next two Test matches and got lbw in four consecutive innings (actually in the first of them - during Harby's hattrick - he had got a thick inside edge onto his pads). It is as simple as that. "Form slumped" seems to hint at something else. Tintin 11:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I've toned down the 'slump' mention, and included the four consecutive lbw's. As always, thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually I should thank you and Dweller for considering practically every one of my suggestions. I myself don't think that all of them are really valid. Tintin 13:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The Gilchrist inside edge in the Harhajan hat-trick -> that wasn't a slog sweep IIRC, it was an attempted forcing shot through midwicket right; I think it was off the back foot, maybe on the crease. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I think your memory is too good! How do you find our changes? Fancy going support on the FA yet? The Rambling Man 22:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a look. I am surprised that unabashed drivel like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jordan is passing, from all their NBA fan voting. Look at all the editorial comment and hyperbole!! ShockingBlnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, true. Now that I think about it, only two of the four seem to be slog sweeps. Tintin 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further FA comments

  • Support. It's good. Comments:
  1. ...successful World Cup campaign,[55]. - Seemingly unfinished sentence.
    Flowed sentences correctly now The Rambling Man 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Avoid external link referencing format in the "Achievements" section — convert those intro regular references instead.
    Done, but someone else can do it next time!! The Rambling Man 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Choose whether you would like to use British or American date format throughout the article.
    Well, throughout th earticle, all dates are consistent, but agreed they conflict with the footnote style, but that is set by the citeweb template when using the accessdate field. So no action here I think. The Rambling Man 18:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Fixed me thinks. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Gilchrist's skills as a wicket-keeper are sometimes questioned... - The following part of the sentence should state some people doubt him being the best keeper in Australia, and not the opposite.
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. ...in six innings against both India and Sri Lanka - "both" is redundant.
    Removed. Thanks. --Dweller 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Note other instances of the word. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Have eradicated several more. Judiciously left some in, where it served for emphasis. This is clearly goes into subjective territory, but the clear redundancies have been removed. Thanks. --Dweller 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. The author referencing parameter is reserved solely for people.
    Done where appropriate, thank you. The Rambling Man 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. List of cricket terms improperly linked.
    Works for me, can you say which instance isn't linked properly and why? The Rambling Man 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Fixed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. A Test series whitewash over New Zealand,[70] was followed.. - Whenever a reference is placed in the middle of a sentence, adding a comma prior to it is unnecessary as this would normally result in a grammatical error.
    Indeed, bad Rambling Man. Comma prosecuted. The Rambling Man 17:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. ...moved the family > ...moved with the family.
    I disagree with this. Parents deciding where to move a family is appropriate. "Moved with" would make it sound like the kids decided and the parents were forced to agree. --Dweller 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few issues

Great article, just a few issues I've got.

  • At the start of the 1997–98 Australian season, Healy and captain Mark Taylor were omitted from the ODI squad as the Australian selectors opted for a more aggressive batting style, choosing Gilchrist and Michael di Venuto. Gilchrist's elevation was made possible by a change in policy by selectors, who announced that selection for ODI and Test teams would be separate, with Test and ODI specialists selected accordingly, while Healy remained the preferred Test wicket-keeper. That probably needs citing.
    • You crafty sod, yes, this needs a citation. I was half tempted to remove the whole thing because I couldn't find anything useful to add... Can you help? The Rambling Man 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll have a go... HornetMike 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Odd. I'm sure I cited that Test/ODI thing a while back... --Dweller 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The new team was initially unconvincing, losing all four of its round robin matches against South Africa in the 1997–98 Carlton & United Series,[43][44][45][46] shouldn't citations go at the end of sentences?
    • Actually, and I'm no expert, if you follow WP:FOOT, they can be placed quite happily after punctuation marks, so I think this is okay in this case... The Rambling Man 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In the effort to find an opening partner for Waugh, he walked out with Gilchrist to attempt a run chase in the first final against South Africa, at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.[47] That probably needs re-phrasing
    • Sorry for being blunt, but how? What emphasis would you rather read into this? Cheers! The Rambling Man 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It's just that you get Waugh and then pronoun referring to him come one after another. And when one reads the article you sort of auto-presume any "he's" refer to Gilchrist. I had to re-read that sentence a couple of times to work out what it meant.
  • During this series, he was made captain, once again in the absence of an injured Mark Waugh, for a single Test, Steve surely?
  • However, he maintained his own high standards in the One-day game Not sure we need the own there
  • You want to put the refernces into two columns? Might help.
    • Well, I'm using {{reflist|2}} which appears to work nicely in some browsers (e.g. Safari) and not in others (e.g. IE7). Not 100% my fault, but if there's a solution, let me know... Cheers, The Rambling Man 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC) HornetMike 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • There's a reason why I shouldn't use IE7... HornetMike 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More FA nom comments from Quadzilla99

  • Obviously this is a personal preference but I'd like the lead to be without citations, also it could stand to be expanded.
  • Expanded a bit, I'm going to leave thecitations for the time being... The Rambling Man 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of two sentence paragraphs which could be expanded or combined, particularly the ones in the lead. You could expand the first paragraph in the early life section in particular. Maybe by saying who he looked up to as a youth or who he played for/with as a youth (I'm not that familiar with cricket but I assume they play cricket in organized leagues in their teenage years also).
  • Added a bit more, but have to be careful to find decent citable information which seems hard to come by in the early days of Gilly's career.The Rambling Man 15:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also this sentence could use a source:"At the start of the 1997–98 Australian season, Healy and captain Mark Taylor were omitted from the ODI squad as the Australian selectors opted for a more aggressive batting style, choosing Gilchrist and Michael di Venuto." It sounds like a statement someone might argue over (someone might say they was omitted for other reasons).
  • Removed for the time being, no doubt the two batsmen selected were more aggressive but no citations available right now so just stick to bare facts of the matter. The Rambling Man 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also link whitewash the first time it appears, if it already is linked I apologize but I don't think it is.
  • In addition "Gilchrist has also been reprimanded for criticism of other players, including questioning Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action in 2002 and was reprimanded by the Australian Cricket Board." Is unclear why was he reprimanded by the Australian cricket board?
  • More explanation now provided, hopefully sufficient. The Rambling Man 14:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • First World Cup Success contains a couple of long sentences as do a few other other sections but I guess they're alright.
  • Modified the lines you've specified, if anything else specifically annoys, please let me know! The Rambling Man 14:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also maybe remove the "aganosingly" adjective in favor of something more neutral and formal in the Two in a row section, unless it has some meaning I don't understand.
  • Removed and rephrased - the point was that he was out one short of a century, so made it clearer. The Rambling Man 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Quadzilla99 13:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great work. Quadzilla99 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
To make it clear, I supported even before these concerns were addressed. So great job all around and way to address concerns in detail. Quadzilla99 12:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Nichalp

  • Weak oppose --
  1. choppy prose. He is.. appears 3 times in 1 paragraph in the lead.
    Hopefully rephrased to move a bit away from the repetitive choppy nonsense. The Rambling Man 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. add the (US baseball franchise the,) Boston Red Sox
    Done, linked to MLB and added a bit of explanation. The Rambling Man 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Section titles needs to be in a more encyclopedic tone "Two in a row?"; "2001 Ashes and beyond"? --> =2003 world cup=; =2001 Ashes=;
    Sorry, that's the wannabe trashy journalist coming out in me. Headings changed accordingly... The Rambling Man 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. i.e. --> that is
    Done... The Rambling Man 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. known for his emotion -- POV; rephrase
    Yeah, knew you didn't like that sentence. I've made it clear that his outbursts have been noted and hopefully made the whole phrasing a bit more npov. The Rambling Man 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. 'remarkably high' --> high
    Done. The Rambling Man 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. He made only seven further appearances odd wording -- that ending paragraph is choppy.
    Tried a repositioning of the paragraph in question, minor reword, and hope that the flow has improved to avert your choppy issues! The Rambling Man 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Avoid mentioning his age (35 year-old)
    Gone, agreed, an oversight, potential maintenance nightmare removed. The Rambling Man 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Identity of primary School

The section headed “Early and Personal life” includes this statement “He and his family lived in Dorrigo where, playing for his school, Deniliquin Primary School...” One of these places has to be incorrect as Dorrigo is on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales and Deniliquin is perhaps 1,000km away in the Riverina of NSW. I do not know which one is correct but at least one of them must be wrong. Furry 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as Deniliquin Primary (or Public) anyway. It's Deniliquin North and Deniliquin South. Anyhow, Dorrigo has only one public school, so I've fixed it. source. Peter1968 04:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Challenges undoing vandalism

I undid an edit called 'undoing vandalism' because it seemed to either be reverting to a previous example of vandalism, or it was itself vandalism disguised as an undo.[1] However, it appears as though the version showing as current isn't the version I reverted to. I don't know if it's the servers lagging, or because it's such a big file? I did CTRL+refresh, so I don't think it's my cache. Anyways, sorry in advance if I lost anyone's good edits in my reversion or if I made things worse. Anchoress 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bowling Style

I think that the "NA-Wicket-keeper" comment regarding his bowling style should be changed, because he does have a bowling style - just because he wicket-keeps doesnt mean he doesnt have a bowling style. Baggy green describes his bowling style as "Right-arm offbreak" here. He has also bowled two overs in List-A cricket according to that website aswell. I am going to change the artice, and if people diagree with it, then woop-de-doo. Twenty Years 05:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When you say "also", that is in fact all that he's bowled - 12 balls in List-A (conceding 10 runs). Here, it's far more useful to say "wicket-keeper" than "Right-arm offbreak". —Moondyne 07:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic limited overs...

This is a very good article, congrats. I did, however, notice an odd ommision: basically nothing is said of Gilly's domestic limited-overs career. The sole focus of Domestic career seems to be the Sheffield Shield, almost nothing is said of the Ford Ranger One Day Cup. Mikker (...) 10:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilly's day

What a coincidence. Gilly is featured in main page today here and he's butchering Sri Lanka in finals there. Gilly's batting is a great feast for cricket fans. :) Gnanapiti 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. He's going to make history today I think. The Rambling Man 18:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn, what an innings, what a player! And they were trying to keep Ponting on strike too! It must be the Weet-Bix =))

[edit] still featured?

The "featured" star seems to have been lost in the article. – Kaihsu 16:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walking and Discipline

After checking the reference (130) for the game in which Gilchrist was fined 50% of his match payment in 2004 for arguing with the umpire after the dismissal of Andrew Symonds (before his recall) Asoka De Silva was not standing in that match. The correct umpire identified in news articles was Peter Manuel, and I've updated to reflect this, however there is no Wiki article for Peter Manuel (the umpire), it might be worth creating a stub. DrDoogle 05:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Man-of-the-match awards (ODIs)

In the section "Man-of-the-match awards (ODIs)" it the column "Ground" indicates that the "SCG" is in Sydney, Brisbane and Chittagong:

[quote]

5 February 2006 South Africa SCG, Sydney 88 runs, 2 catches

14 February 2006 Sri Lanka SCG, Brisbane 122 runs

23 April 2006 Bangladesh SCG, Chittagong 76 runs, 4 catches, 1 stumping

[/quote]

What's up with that?--203.10.224.61 07:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squash Ball

The article fails to mention that Gilly used a squashball in his glove during the CWC Final 2007. The Sri Lankan's are saying that it is unfair etc. It was resported on channel 9 news (in Perth, Western Australia), and his batting coach - Bob Meuleman was on the news talking about it. Might be notable in the following few weeks as more info comes to light. Twenty Years 10:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV statement

I think that this statement needs to be changed or removed:

"However, while perhaps not as elegant as some, he has successfully kept wicket for leg spinner Shane Warne over many years, managing many stumpings, missing few catching chances, and letting through few byes."

A statistic on stumpings could be found, but how do you judge "missing few catching chances and letting few byes?" Also, who judges his success against Warne? I personally agree that he's done a good job, but the only point of comparison is Healy, and either way, the statement is unsourced and will probably stay that way.

If nobody objects or changes over the next few days, I'll remove the statement. Damanmundine | Talk 10:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree it should go. The fact is he has had little critism of his keeping in recent years... its not been bad at all, perhaps not Healy or Knott good, but still good. In this case a lack of cites is almost proof in itself. The press are savage about poor keeping, just ask any England keeper of the last few years. Furthermore it shouldnt be hard to cite a respected source saying he's been pretty good. --LiamE 14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on most counts, so I think we should find a citation on his keeping ability to back up the statement. I'll try to do that over the next few days. I'm still not sure about the "missing few chances and letting through few byes" part, because it doesn't seem specific enough. Maybe a change to "he has successfully kept wicket to both fast bowlers and spinners alike, notably Shane Warne,(cite) managing 37 stumpings in Test matches." Damanmundine | Talk 00:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The lead

What has happened to the lead? It has been chopped to pieces and is now unrecognisable from its Featured Article glory. The current lead is full of one sentence paragraphs and does not meet FA guidelines. Please have a look at WP:LEAD and if you can recover the chopped out content and restore it to the lead. Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk 09:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's suffered from a huge bout of recentism. I'll see if I can restore it to the FA standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Is done. I'll keep an eye on it, it looks likely that it'll be hacked to death by one or two determined editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That was quick! Thanks. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No bother. And I've added a note at WP:CRICKET to ask for people to keep their eyes peeled for any changes that may compromise the FA status. The Rambling Man (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better. Although some of the recent stuff, like the wicket-keeping world record and his retirement, does need to be expanded in the body of the article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You reckon? At present the sentence about retirement is little better than just adding "OMG Gilly just retired!!!!" as the first line... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.113.165 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If you contributed to the FA status of this article, well done. But the intro is terrible. A complicated recital of the years of debut doesn't fit well early on - better for the article's body. The fact he holds a world record in his primary skill is the last sentence! Why on earth are reprimands included in this section? - this in no way defines him as a cricketer or his contribution to cricket. All in all it is a great article but a lousy lead. I'd suggest a intro like this: line with name, dob, nickname, retired cricket player. Former acting captain, usual VC. Line that details wicketkeeping achievements. Line for batting achievement. ROxBo (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Erick880 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Damn

Damn out for 14 today on his retirement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.170.210 (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CricInfo

Does anybody but CricInfo write about Gilchrist?

To me it seems that this article may have no NPOV. 132 of 158 referances are cricinfo. Most of these have a point of view. I suggest we find different referances inorder to help maintain the quality of this article.

Please feel free to offer comments, and suggestions,

Erick880 (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most are raw scorecards and statistics. These aren't "investigative statistics" that might be deliberately misanalysed, because they just tell us what the official proceedings of the match were. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point, it just looked so weird I cannot think of ever seeing that many of the same source. But yeah they are mostly just stats.

Erick880 (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Some fans believe the squash ball was unethical"

Does this bit really need to be there? I know "some fans" think it was unethical, but "some fans" think a lot of things. Isn't it enough to say it caused controversy but was deemed legal by the ICC? The "but some fans consider it unethical" sounds tacked on and redundant. It sounds like a "last word" for the ball controversy brigade in an argument that's already been settled70.180.211.21 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)