Talk:Len Hutton

Comments about my edit on Jan 19, 2005

(a) As far as I can find, the wicket where England was allout for 52 was 'live' but not one ruined by rain. If anyone can find evidence to contrary, they can revert the changes.

(b) >> Hutton however showed his customary determination and resolve to lead England to victory in the last two Tests to draw the series 2-2.

England won the third and fifth Tests, the fourth ended in a draw.

Tintin1107

---

Huttons 202

Hutton's 202 used to be the lowest total to feature a double century, but, this summer the 2nd test of India vs Sri Lanka featured a double century by Virender Sehwag, part of a total of 329 - thus being lower than the 344. --Knucmo2 (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

List of centuries

I am currently working on expanding this article. As it gets longer (I'm assuming it will get quite big), I eventually plan to remove the list of centuries at the bottom. It could go in a separate article if necessary, but I would save it in my own pages (I did this with Wally Hammond). Are there any objections?--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is getting to the point it will have to split, like Don Bradman. I would suggest that an article on Len Hutton's England captaincy would be appropriate; it was a major part of his career and important in the history of cricket. We could then expand both articles. Philipjelley (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but this article still requires some work and is currently at GAN. I have cut quite a bit already and plan to cut more to make it more manageable, but all the old material could easily be used to make new articles, possibly on his captaincy and on his early life (i.e. pre war). The captaincy one could cover the amateur/professional issue. However, whatever happens in future, this article still must cover all his life. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and fixed. [1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: None found - note that all of the cricinfo.com refs redirect to espncricinfo.com. You may wish to fix these as the old site may go dead at some point. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   However, the level of expectation surrounding him led critics to regard this as no great achievement. However, he took part several big partnerships through the season, including one of 230 with Sutcliffe, but endured a run of low scores in May and June. Successive sentences starting with "However" - rather clumsy phrasing. Done

   Hutton received more criticism for his negative approach, but cricket writer believes Hutton needed to establish his defensive technique first in order to have his subsequently successful career. Which "cricket writer"? Done

   ''Former Australian player, working as a journalist, criticised Hutton for trying to play front foot shots in the match rather than back foot shots. Which former "Australian player"? Done

   None of the amateur county captains were considered to of sufficient ability to represent England in a Test, or were too inexperienced to be captain. Badly phrased, please recast, the second clause appears as a double negative. Done

   however, his work with Fenner's limited the time he could devote to watching players and he did committees. "he did committees"? Done

   I made a number of minor copy-edits.[2]

   Article complies with MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is well referenced. References check out, are RS.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers major aspects of the subject's career, without excessive minutiae.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I adjusted the brightness and contrast of File:Morris Hutton.jpg to improve the definition.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for prose issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

   Well that has to be the shortest hold in history! Congratulations on a thorough and detailed article which I am happy to list as a GA. I am sorry that you had to wait sop long for a review. Suggest that you get a peer review and then take to WP:GAC. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've fixed the prose issues you have pointed out (and one or two others). Not quite sure how they slipped through... --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Some post-PR comments

You asked me if I could complete the comments that I began during the now-closed Peer Review. The following cover as far as the "100th century" section.

Tour to South Africa

• Section title needs amending, as at least half of it is about the 1939 season

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• "From October 1938, Hutton toured South Africa with the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) under the captaincy of Hammond and won the series 1–0, with the other four games drawn". Hutton won the series 1–0? Rephrasing necessary.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• It might be better to incorporate the footnote about the MCC into the text, as many people puzzled by "the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)" won't realise that the explanation is in the footnote.

• Rather than digress in the text, I added a line about it and left the footnote for the fuller explanation. Better? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wartime injury and recovery

• Was he "promoted" to sergeant-instructor, or was this his rank on enlistment?

• The source is vague and mentions promotion after training; I've reworded it slightly to say he was recruited as a sergeant to remove the ambiguity. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Date of army discharge?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• "He resumed wartime representative cricket in 1944 and when..." I advise removing the first few words, which sre out of place chronologically and give little useful information. Suggest begin the sentence "When the war ended..."

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

First tour to Australia

• "...but was part of the MCC team touring party for the 1946–47 winter season." [71] Suggest replace "winter season" with "tour to Australia".

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why are triple-citations necessary for factual statements?

• Either because of unnecessary refs (I suspect a relic from one of my many purging copy-edits!) which are now removed or unnecessary accumulation which are split up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Series against South Africa and West Indies

• Look out for more unnecessary multiple citations

• Did the one with three in a row. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Struggles against pace

• Look out for more unnecessary multiple citations

• Got them, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• "At Lord's in the second Test, also lost by England..." You have not said that England lost the first.

• Done, --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Recalled to the team for the fourth Test..." → "Recalled to the England team for the fourth Test..."

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Hutton's contribution was to bowl four overs and concede 30 runs" Best clarify this was his contribution to the second Australian innings.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well done to discuss both the 1946–47 and 1948 Australian series without mentioning Bradman once!

• Personally, I'm over-Bradmanned for these series and if there is no direct connection or relevance I think we've heard enough! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Leading batsman

• "During 1949, Hutton scored more runs than in any other season..." Scope for misunderstanding here. Perhaps rephrase to clarify that the 1949 English season was his best?

• Done, though I'm not convinced I've used the most elegant phrasing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• You usually mention the Test series result, but you don't in the case of 1949. Suggest: "In the four Test matches against the touring New Zealanders, all of which were drawn,..."

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Australia 1950–51

• Why is Brown's age material? (Allen was 45 when he led the 1948 tour to WI)

• I think Brown was more significant than Allen as this was an Ashes tour and Allen's was a winding down, lets play some gentle cricket tour (in theory). But I agree it is not relevant for this article, so cut it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think you can say Hutton "almost took his team to victory"; falling 70 short of a 193 target is not particularly close. An overenthusiastic reporter may have made this claim, but it shouldn't be repeated here.

• I think it was generally conceded that if someone could have stayed in, Hutton could have won the match on his own. But I suspect you are right and I don't think it should go in here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• "...their first victory over Australia in 26 matches since the war"? I make it 15.

• Hmmm. I can't count anymore. Nor can I read, as that is not what the source says. Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

100th century

• No particular points from ths section.

I will try and deal with the rest before the end of the week. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Final comments

Captain of England

• General point: this section runs to nearly 3000 words, which is quite a lot given the existence of a "main article" on Hutton's captaincy. There may be scope for a more rigorous adoption of summary style.
• Arising from that, possibly some of the individual match details could be shortened, particularly with regard to non-Hutton-related material, e.g. the Watson-Bailey stand.

• To be honest, I think I've cut this back as far as I can without leaving out important information. I did a little more trimming, but really can't see anything else that I could cut. However, if anyone points out parts which should go, I'll be happy to cut more. I just can't see it myself. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• "In the winter of 1953–54, Hutton led the MCC on a controversial tour of West Indies." The tour should not be described as "controversial" in itself. The controversies arose from specific unanticipated events within the tour.
• "Off field" → "Off-field"
• "128 run victory" → "128-run victory"
• Avoid close repetition of "crucial" ("Captain in Australia" section)
• "which, in 2011, remains" requires adjustment

• All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Should "Retirement" be a subsection of "Captain of England", since it deals with his retirement from all cricket?

• I wouldn't be crazy about a main section called retirement, so I've left this for now but will be happy to move it if it is a big issue. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid you'll have to do without my comments on the "Style and Technique" section, as I really can't spare more time for this. I hope my remarks throughout the article have proved useful; I am sure the article has improved during the process of the review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, your comments have been a great help. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Len Hutton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811034806/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/14334.html?class=1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting%3Bview%3Dinnings to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/14334.html?class=1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting%3Bview%3Dinnings

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)