Jump to content

Talk:Learie Constantine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleLearie Constantine 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 so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 15, 2016.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2012Good article nomineeListed
August 3, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
August 30, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 1, 2021, and July 1, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Category:Barbados cricketers?

[edit]

Why is Constantine in Category:Barbados cricketers? Am I missing something? Guettarda 20:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New material

[edit]

I have reformatted the new material, but some rearrangement is needed to put the article in a more logical order.--Brownlee 16:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Cricket assessment

[edit]

Though the article rates a B for the coverage of his whole life, the part dealing with his cricketing career is rather brief. Also references are rather lacking. Hence I've rated it as Start rather than B. JH (talk page) 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CLR James

[edit]

The passage about James is puzzling. James is at least as famous as Constantine and well known as being a Trinidadian originally, rather than a local. So this passage really makes no sense.

Biblio

[edit]

He wrote Cricketers' Cricket (published 1949). Recently picked up a 2nd hand copy which is why I looked him up on Wiki. Needs adding, cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.53.102 (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Learie Constantine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jhall1 (talk · contribs) 10:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time yet to look at the article in depth, so these are first impressions. I think that all the necessary content and citations are there, but it could do with some work on the formatting. In particular, I think the lead section is too long. One doesn't even see the Table of Contents when viewing the first screenful of the article. Also most of the first couple of paragraphs of the lead are devoted to his cricket. I'd like to see his life subsequent to cricket - which was probably even more important - given greater prominence. It might be worth mentioning in the section on the 1933 tour that he was no longer as fast as he had been in 1928, and not as fast as Martindale, though still pretty sharp. (If you need a citation for that, I have one.) And one minor thing. I happened to notice that the word "however" appeared 34 times (now 33, as I removed one)! JH (talk page) 10:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review!
  • The lead is still longer than I'd like. I'll need to find a spare hour or so to see if I can suggest some more radical surgery. But maybe it's just me who likes to see brief leads, as I've just checked Don Bradman, which is a Featured Article, and the lead is little if at all shorter.
  • I confess that I'd never previously read WP:LEAD. Having now done so, I see that you're well within the suggested length given the total length of the article. My own personal preference is for something much shorter, but I see that that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy. I'd still like to see a mention of the significance of his post-cricket career in the very first paragraph, though. JH (talk page) 22:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put in a bit more and there is quite a lot now in that first paragraph. I try to make the first paragraph quite general so would be reluctant to put in too much more as I hope it now summarises his achievements fairly thoroughly. The danger now is repeating what the rest of the lead says. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In The Cricket Captains of England, Alan Gibson writes: "In 1933 the West Indians were here, with two fast bowlers, or rather one-and-a-bit. Martindale was fast, probably as fast as anyone in the world except Larwood. Constantine was not as fast as he had been a few years earlier, but could still bowl a very fast ball from time to time..." That's from p159 of the 1989 Pavilion Library hardback edition, ISBN 1851453903. JH (talk page) 18:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to barrel in, but I have an infobox query: Should Nelson be included as a domestic team? I thought that field was only for first-class clubs but I could be wrong. Either way, the years should be 1929–1942. BigDom 17:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot, no it shouldn't. I really should check infoboxes more carefully. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First tranche of suggestions/questions

[edit]

I wondered if I could get any useful guidance on what should appear "up front" from looking at other articles about major cricketers who had subsequently gone on to fame in other spheres. The only two that I could think of were Lord Harris and Stanley Jackson, but neither of their articles is well enough developed to be useful. (C.B. Fry is something of a special case.) Not necessarily in the words below, but these are the essential facts about his life that I think ought to be brought to the reader's attention as quickly as possible, preferably in the first couple of sentences:

  • "Learie Nicholas Constantine, Baron Constantine MBE (21 September 1901 – 1 July 1971) was a West Indian Test cricketer, who lived for many years in England, qualified as a lawyer and was later appointed Trinidad's High Commissioner to the UK. He did much to fight racial discrimination in the UK."

Though that's all covered in your first paragraph, it's a very long paragraph, and someone not interested in cricket might not read that far.

  • According to the article UK Sport, the Sports Council (UK Sport's predecessor) was only formed in 1972. If that's correct, then he couldn't have been on it as he died in 1971. Perhaps it was some other body with a similar name and function?
  • I realised that myself when I linked it. It was definitely called the Sports Council but I have no idea of any relationship with the current one, so I've unlinked it. On reflection, I'm not sure why I did so in the first place. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Constantine's mother, Anaise Pascall, was the daughter of slaves" - are you sure? As I understand it, Wilberforce managed to get slavery abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833, and if both his mother's parents were slaves as your wording implies then his mother and his mother's mother would have had to have been getting on a bit when they gave birth as 68 years had elapsed before Learie was born.
  • This one is definite and I think it comes direct from Learie. Her parents were from modern Nigeria and were brought to South America from where they escaped - hence no connection with Britain, they escaped to Trinidad. I thought this was too much for this article but it is in Victor Pascall in full as he was Anaise's brother. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The club was highly competitive and motivated, partly as a reaction to the racial discrimination that its players and supporters encountered in their daily lives" - do you have a citation to say that was the reason (or is it covered by the citatiion at the end of the following sentence)?
  • "When he went, he left behind his wife, whom he had married in 1927" - her name?
  • "International cricketer" - 'Test cricketer' might be a better heading. Arguably he was an international cricketer from 1923, even though WI did not yet have Test status. You can argue either way, as WI did not play against any other nation before 1928, but 'Test cricketer' avoids all debate. (And you could argue that Trinidad against Barbados was an international match.)
  • The only reason I went for this title was because I wanted to include his League cricket and style and technique in this section. Originally, it was Test cricketer and then Lancashire League was its own section. But this left Style and technique a little lonely so I stuck them all together and changed the title. I've now changed it to "Later career": Does that work, or should we re-jig the whole section title layout here? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where Wikipedia articles exist for the tours he went on, it would help to Wikilink to them.
  • To be honest, the coverage of tours is a little haphazard so I tend not to bother as I don't think it adds much to the article. I would prefer to leave it as it is, but if you think it is important I will do so. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for the moment. More to follow when time permits. So far I've found nothing that would stop me approving a GA rating. JH (talk page) 11:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great help so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I'm happy with the changes you've made as a result. I hope to get on to the next bit in a day or two. JH (talk page) 10:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Tranche

[edit]
  • Possibly alter "Later career" heading to "Later cricket career"? After all, cricket wasn't his only career. If that's too unwieldy, then why not "Test career"?
  • "Following his first season in Nelson in 1929" - possibly add "(see below)" so that the reader won't think that his career with Nelson isn't covered? (Though they ought to know from the contents list, they may have forgotten.)

I've done lots of minor tinkering with the wording. If there's anything that you don't agree with, feel free to undo it as none of it was that important. For me to do next: Test series against England in 1933 and 1934–5. JH (talk page) 11:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with any of your tinkering! It has cleaned it up very well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third tranche

[edit]

I've now completed his cricket. I didn't find anything major. I've been thinking about the top-level structure of the article, though. I was wondering if it would help the reader to introduce another level of section heading: "Cricket career", under which the two existing cricket sections would go, and another to be called something like "Life after cricket" or "Lawyer and diplomat" for the later sections. But on reflection I'm not sure that it would be an improvement, partly because the section about his life in Nelson wouldn't really fit in either place. One difficulty is that the "cricket"/"other things" and the "life when based in West Indies" / "life when based in England" splits, which are the two obvious possibilities for top-level splits, cut across each other. JH (talk page) 11:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean and I'm not too happy with the structure myself. I've now combined the two cricket sections into "cricket career" and left the Life in England section, keeping his experiences in Nelson within that. But I'm still not totally convinced, and the cricket section seems a little long in the contents. However, it may be the best compromise. Let me know if you think of anything better. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Sorry about my "improvisated" by the way. I don't know how that slipped through! JH (talk page) 18:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything going okay with this review? I see that progress is being made, but since it's been a month just checking in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for taking so long. Christmas hasn't helped, but I hope to finish it within the next week or two. JH (talk page) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth tranche

[edit]

I've now done up to and including the section about his court case against Imperrial London Hotels. I haven't found anything major, but have added some wikilinks and attempted to clarify and tighten up the wording. You'd better check to ensure I haven't inadvertantly changed the meaning anywhere. "He also took part in a film documentary in 1943." If you can find the title of the film, it would be worth including. JH (talk page) 17:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the source gives it, but I'll have a look. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it did, so added it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final tranche

[edit]

Please check the changes I've made, to make sure that I haven't changed the meaning anywhere when attempting to clarify.

Suggestions/questions:

  • "Roman Law examination" - I suspect this will puzzle many readers, as it puzzled me. Can't find a helpful wl for it.
  • "The speech placed doubts in the minds of the electorate, which may already have been questioning his commitment to Trinidad given his long absence abroad." - I assume that the latter bit is in Mason's book rather than plausible speculation on your part?
  • "According to Mason, the speech placed doubts in the minds of the electorate" - but the next citation included seems to be for Howat rather than Mason. (Did I make a mistake and mislead you when I said "I assume that the latter bit is in Mason's book"?)
  • "role" is used an awful lot - I've removed some.
  • "but it evolved into a more ambassadorial role as an official representative of the Trinidad government" - not clear quite what this means. Isn't that the role of a High Commissioner by definition?
  • How about "evolved into a more traditional ambassadorial role..."?
  • This quote from Howat seems to comtain a typo or a missing word: "In the language of the game he loved ... his timing was wrong but though he was full of good intentions."
  • "Trinidad Cross" - looks to me as if it should probably be the Trinity Cross, but I haven't changed it.
  • I wonder if "Personal life" is the best title for the final section, given its contents.
  • It's more descriptive, but yoking them together in the heading is a little awkard. Perhaps make them two sepate sectioons, even though the first would be very short?
  • There could be a risk that readers will be confused by reference #1 being to the OED piece by Howat and think that subsequent references to Howat are to that piece rather than to his book in the Bibliography.
  • His name should be added to the article List of members of Middle Temple, and in our "own" article the category Members of the Middle Temple should be added. (I've not done that myself, as I'm about to go out.)
  • Among the categories is "British Roman Catholics". If the only evidence for that is that he went to a Catholic primary school, then I think it should be removed. (I went to a C of E primary school, but I've been an atheist since the age of twenty or so.) JH (talk page) 11:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made three responses above, and once those are addressed I'm happy with the text. However, reading the Good Article criteria has reminded me of the desirability of illustrations. We have three from his cricketing days, but none of him in later life, and at least one would be a good thing, though I wouldn't fail the article or put it on hold on that account. After all it's supposed to be good, not perfect! JH (talk page) 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is one of copyright. The images in the article are copyright free, ones of his later life are not. Because free images are available, it is not possible to have copyrighted images in here as well. Complicated and dull, but necessary as it is a minefield! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. JH (talk page) 22:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article passes

[edit]

Having completed the review, and with the suggested changes having been implemented, the article passes, having satisfied all of the Good Article criteria:

  • Well-written: Yes.
  • Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes.
  • Broad in its coverage: Yes.
  • Neutral: Yes.
  • Stable: Yes.
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes, within the constraints imposed by copyright.

JH (talk page) 10:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captaincy of the Dominions side

[edit]

"He played just once more in first-class cricket, when in 1945, as the only black player in either side, he captained a team representing the "Dominions" against England at Lord's." It indicates the respect in which he must have been held, given the prevailing attitude towards black people at that time, that he should have been made captain of a side that was otherwise white. Do any of the sources that you're drawing on mention this? JH (talk page) 08:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the latest round of edits

[edit]

"...he saw his first season at Nelson as the best of his life owing to the freedom and excitement of the cricket he played." I think that's worth retaining. JH (talk page) 08:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Learie Constantine

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Learie Constantine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ODNB":

  • From Jack Hobbs: Howat, Gerald M. D. (2004, 2011). "Hobbs, Sir John Berry [Jack] (1882–1963)" ((subscription or UK public library membership required)). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved 11 March 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); External link in |format= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  • From Douglas Jardine: Howat, Gerald M. D. (September 2004). "Jardine, Douglas Robert (1900–1958)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 9 June 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MBE

[edit]

When a person becomes a knight (presumably in this case a KBE rather than a baronet), and subsequently a baron, wouldn't that supersede their MBE, so that it should no longer be included in their official title as given at the start of the article and in the infobox? (Though obviously one would still mention the award at the appropriate point in the article.) JH (talk page) 19:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. The Wisden obit gives Lord Constantine MBE, but ODNB gives Baron Constantine and no MBE. Not being too familiar with the British Honours system, but suspecting the ODNB people know the form, I'm inclined to go with them and so I've removed MBE. There is probably an obscure rule or other. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who was who also seems to leave MBE out of his title. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine was made a "Knight bachelor", not a KBE. The MBE he received in 1945 was not superseded by the knighthood, nor by the subsequent life peerage. He kept it to his dying day. It would be OK to refer to him as "Lord Constantine MBE", but as the MBE is a fairly low-level honour it is more usually omitted from the formal title. For what it's worth, there are lots of different types of knighthood in the British honours system. Baronets are not knights, although they carry the title "Sir"; theirs is an hereditary honour, very rarely awarded these days. The main division among knights is between those appointed to orders of chivalry, and those not. The latter are the "Knights bachelor", and they form the majority of knighthoods. The main orders of chivalry are the Order of the British Empire, the Order of St Michael and St George, the Order of the Bath, the Royal Victorian Order and some highly exclusive ones such as the Order of the Garter. Knights appointed to these become, respectively, KBE, KCMG, KCB, KCVO and KG. There are (naturally) a few variations, but that's it in a nutshell. Here endeth today's lesson. Brianboulton (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space/Period

[edit]

I noticed that the edit made reverted to the incorrect used that indicates a segment of time. Time is duration not volume so the use of space is inappropriate. A calendar takes up a space but the time it indicates take up duration. So although "space of time" may be common it is an incorrect indication of time.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [1]. this is correct English. Thanks. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. My Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th edition, gives nine different ways in which "space" can be used, of which the fourth is "an interval of time". JH (talk page) 17:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible image

[edit]

This image may be of use, though may need checking before being placed in a featured article: "West Indian Labour Force in Britain: Skilled engineers, boiler makers and motor mechanics, all from the West Indies being welcomed at the Ministry of Labour, St James' Square, London. Learie Constantine, the famous cricketer from Trinidad who was employed as a Welfare Officer for West Indians working in Britain, introduces the men to the Minister of Labour, Ernest Bevin." Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Nelson blue plaque may warrant a mention in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: It looks good, and I'm pretty certain it is PD-UK, but I'd like some reassurance that it was also PD-US before including it. Otherwise, I'd be happy to put it in. The blue plaque... not too bothered either way but to me a local blue plaque does not really merit inclusion unless it is a really notable one like in London. I'm not even crazy about the London ones, but I wouldn't remove anything that was added. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this image now as I'm relatively happy it is PD-US, and it can be removed if it isn't. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Learie Constantine. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Learie Constantine

[edit]

Language</sLanguagepan> @utonnejelend@Gmail.com97 81.78.85.27 (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Learie_Constantine&oldid=1232105180"