This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Given your work on George Headley and Victor Pascall, I wonder if any of your sources have any information on Maurice Fernandes, the captain of West Indies during their first Test victory? I've got all I can from the internet and Altham and Swanton, which is little more than CricketArchive and his obituaries. He doesn't look the most exciting of individuals, but I figure with a little bit more (or even not much more) he can probably sit as a weak GA.
I found it amusing that while we're having an "Indian summer", Somerset's match was rained off yesterday: it appears they must be having an "English summer"! Harrias talk 15:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, should all be sorted now, and thanks for the review. In hindsight maybe I shouldn't have submitted something to GAN while in the middle of buying a house... Oldelpaso (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Via our National Lib. of Aus. newspapers online project I've come across an article written by HL Collins which may include a sentence or two for you. Published at the end of 1937 it can be found here: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/37916616 RossRSmith (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
"there's a bit from Swanton and, indirectly, from Cardus (any idea where he wrote that?)" Swanton was the editor of Barclay's World of Cricket, and didn't himself write the great majority of its content, instead commissioning writers to write pieces on their speciality, or in many cases reusing pieces originally written for other publications. I suggest that in the Bibliography section the entry shouuld make clear that Swanton was the editor rather than the writer. The profile on Crawford, at page 167, is attributed to Cardus, but doesn't say where or when it was originally published. In turn Cardus quotes a tribute to Crawford by HS Altham, which I'll try to work in if it isn't there already.
I should be able to get something from David Lemmon's Surrey history for you. Other possible sources that I can check are Arlott on Cricket, Ronald Mason's biography of Jack Hobbs, and a couple of books that I have by AA Thomson. I may not have time till Saturday or Sunday. I imagine that you will already have checked Crawford's Wisden obit and CoY articles, which should both be available at Cricinfo. JH (talk page) 09:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
On 8 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Victor Pascall, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Victor Pascall of Trinidad was considered the best left-arm spinner in West Indies cricket during his career? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Victor Pascall.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 00:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
After doing a little bit of work on it, I've sent Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009 back to FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009/archive2. Wish me luck! Harrias talk 15:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about taking so long to reply to your message and thanks for doing the review. I will be looking to work on the article over the next few days and I am optimistic that I will have the majority of issues fixed by then. I agree with your assessement but I think I will be able to improve the article relatively quickly. Thank you. Adam4267 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Why? It's making it really difficult for me to navigate around all that text. It's ridiculous. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sarastro1, thanks for your review. I was wondering in terms of the prose issues - is it something that could be dealt with in FAC or is that bad that it's best withdrawn? In previous FACs, prose hasn't been such a weak spot for me so I'm concerned whether you feel that the article is underprepared. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 22:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sarastro. Here's a very long mail for you. I noticed on CRIC that you've worked on Mold's article and I wondered if you would be interested in extracting any of the following which is a very well written piece in a 2005 ACS journal by Don Ambrose, a highly regarded writer who has contributed a lot of biographical content to CricketArchive. For citation purposes, you would need in the bibliography:
((cite book))
: |work=
ignored (help)The article covers four pages from 29 to 32.
The ACS article also has two photos: one a late action still which is almost certainly from the film on YouTube; the other is a portrait of Mold in his prime, standing erect and holding the ball towards the camera. I'm not brilliant at uploading photos and you never can tell if they are public domain or otherwise allowable but the ACS do not formally acknowledge their use so I suspect they are PD. If you'd like me to have a go at uploading them, I will.
That's it. I hope you might find something useful in all this. All the best. ----Jack | talk page 15:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sarastro. Per numerous other pages, you have been visited by the Daft/Tillman/KestevenBullet troll. You shouldn't have to put up with this so I've reverted your talk page. Admins spotted his actions immediately and blocked both his new accounts so we just have to tidy up now.
Thanks for your message yesterday, by the way, and I hope that extract is useful. ----Jack | talk page 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Finished all comments. As a side note William Hearn (umpire) might be of interest to you as a DYK. Albacore (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I need another week! Is that OK? Hel-hama (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You had reviewed the article a few weeks ago. I made most of your suggested changes and am seeking out an independent copyeditor. I just wanted to reply to some of your comments, as it may be useful in the long run.
Thanks again for reviewing. Maxim(talk) 23:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Having just read the article on Wilfred Rhodes, I feel inclined to give you a barnstar in recognition of a fantastic article! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks for your review: I've responded to all of your comments (though not made any changes to the article!) As always, thanks for the copy-editting as well; slowly but surely I think my writing is improving as I look through what you change and try to avoid it in the future. Certainly the slowly part, anyway. Look forward to your further comments. Incidentally, what are your thoughts on Gillespie's appointment? Harrias talk 17:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
With regards to the A-class review, I'm hoping to tap into a couple of editors for the military stuff. It looks like User:AustralianRupert reckons a cricketing rubber stamp will be needed for the A-class thing itself. Harrias talk 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The Good Article Barnstar | ||
Thanks Sarastro1 for helping to promote Harry Lee (cricketer) to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC) |
As a Nelsonian and a cricket fan I just wanted to say thanks and well done for what you've done with the Learie Constantine article. When I'm back in Nelson in a couple of weeks (currently at university in Sheffield), I'll have a look through the local library newspaper archives and perhaps be able to add more about his life in the area and time in the Lancashire League. Well done again, it's a great read now and a fitting account of a great man's life. Cheers, BigDom 18:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'll be making some comments at the GA review which I hope will be helpful. JH (talk page) 09:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I still have all of Learie's post cricket career to do. I had intended to do some more before this, but what with Christmas it slipped my mind. I'll try to take a quick look at Len Hutton in the next day or two, but I'm afraid that it will only be a very brief one. JH (talk page) 22:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw that, but to be fair there was no sign of a stick. :) I've replied, hopefully reassuringly. JH (talk page) 17:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, we are just about there, but see Learie's Talk page. I've now looked at the documentation for what I need to do to pass the article, and I can't say that I really understand what the parameters for the GA template on the talk page should be. Please can you advise? (I must admit that if I had realised at the time that I would not be just one of several reviewers or how time-consuming this would be, I should never have volunteered! I can't help thinking that our time would be better spent in writing new articles or expanding inadequate ones than in the GA (or FA) process.) JH (talk page) 20:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Sarastro. In the past, I presumed that ((PD-US-1996))
meant that any Australian photograph created before 1946 would be in the US public domain. I have blundered in that aspect. The URAA ruling in ((PD-US-1996))
governs published material, not unpublished ones. As a result, I am afraid I was complicit in allowing several photographs of unknown publication status to have passed in review (thinking that they were PD in both US and Australia). My current opinion is:
Photographs taken before 1946 and first published in Australia
Photographs taken before 1946 but never published
Items are considered published if copies of the work were made available to the public by the copyright owner or authorised parties.
One might say that by making digital copies of the items available online, the archive or museum is publishing it at that moment. However, that might apply only to certain material because said institutions might have received donations of material without transfer of copyright (especially if it was scrapbook collections). Also the notion of digital distribution qualifying as publishing is not yet cemented in law.
I have heard of arguments that state 50-year-old Australian photographs are PD in the US by virtue of the free trade agreement between the US and Australia. Frankly, I have not seen any part of the FTA that states this. What was achieved in the FTA was the extension of copyright term in Australia from 50 to 70 years (thus US works would be protected in Australia with a tenure similar to what they were in the US itself, and Australian works in the US would also enjoy the same term of protection as they would back home) and nothing else (the country's laws still remain mostly the same, except for the extension of terms).[1][2] If anyone can point out where the FTA specifically force the US to recognize that Australian photographs are PD in the US because of Australian law, that would help a lot of image reviews here and my mind as well.
With regards to File:Learie Constantine.jpg, it would be best to find out if that image was first published in Australia. These books might be of help. Per above, any pre-1946 picture of Constantine first published in an Australian book would be PD in both US and Australia. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments at Talk:The Rebel Flesh/GA1. Thanks for reviewing! Glimmer721 talk 17:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind remarks: he's been on my to-do list for a while since I noticed how poor the article was a month or so back. I don't have either of the books you mentioned, so please feel free to add whatever you can: I'm in such a busy work period that my appearances here are pretty unpredictable. Johnlp (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
... I keep hovering around! Wondered if you had any sources which state when first-class cricket was defined, and that first-class status afforded to matches before then was enacted retroactively, and a little haphazardly! Working on the Lyttelton clan in various parts of user space at the moment, and think it is relevant to discuss, particularly for Charles. But though the article on first-class cricket mentions it, it doesn't really reference much! Harrias talk 22:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
It's clear that Crawford's exceptional talent was quickly recognised. Though he only had, I think, 17 f-c matches behind him over two seasons when picked for South Africa, he had clearly impressed everyone. Also school cricket was probably given much more weight then than it is today. It's astonishing how much coverage HS Altham gives it in the 1st volume of "A History of Cricket". I can't provide anything specific, but the article on Surrey for the 1906 Wisden might have something, if you can manage to access it.
As to Crawford's return to Surrey, David Lemmon's history just says that "his differences with Surrey had been settled". It seems clear to me that the death of Lord Alverstoke in (IIRC) 1915 must have been a major factor, but I can't provide a citation to support that opinion. The trouble is that everyone was so damned discreet about such things back then. :) Again, the Wisden article on Surrey for the relevant season might have something, though I doubt it. JH (talk page) 22:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Sarasro1, thanks for your help and comments at the recent FAC for Jonathan Agnew. Unfortunately it was closed earlier today as it received no support within three weeks. As such, we'll need to wait a while before renominating the article, some time in the new year. This is just a quick note to thank you for your help up to this point, have a good seasonal period, and look forward to working with you in 2012. Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be glad to. Your cricket articles are quite illuminating and enjoyable. Finetooth (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I just happen to have the 1923 Wisden on my desk at present (courtesy of having diverted temporarily off George Francis on to Henry Murray-Anderdon, the Cardinal Richelieu of Somerset cricket). Here's some Cambridge blurb (Part II, page 374, Chapter "The Universities—Cambridge"):
A. P. F. Chapman, the most brilliant of all our young amateur batsmen, was disappointing in most of the trial games, but he found his best form in a splendid 102 not out against Oxford, and that atoned for any previous short-comings. Like Hubert Ashton he was superb in the field. A cover point being wanted he stepped into the position and did wonders, getting down to the ball with lightning quickness and stopping everything that could be stopped.
There isn't a lot in the report on the Varsity match (Part II, page 16, Chapter "M.C.C. Matches"):
The finest cricket of the match was seen on the second morning, Hubert Ashton and Chapman, by superb play, taking the score to 403 [from 231] and being still together when, at ten minutes past one, rain and a wretched light caused the players to leave the field... Chapman, who had been very disappointing in the trial matches, happily found his best form on the all-important occasion. His 102 not out—a delightful innings to watch—included eleven 4's.
Here's the report on the Lord's G v P match (Part II, page 404, Chapter "Gentlemen v. Players Matches")
In the morning [of the second day] there was some good defensive batting by Fiddian-Green and Ashton, but the cream of the cricket came during a wonderful partnership by Carr and Chapman. They became partners before lunch with the score at 86, and put on 150 runs together in an hour and three-quarters. Carr was out at last to a catch in the long field... Chapman found another first-rate partner in Mann, who helped to add 147 in less than two hours and might have gone on indefinitely if an unfortunate misunderstanding had not caused him to be run out. Bowled at last playing forward, Chapman had the extreme satisfaction of following up his hundred in the University match with a great score of 160, equalling a record that had belonged exclusively to R.E. Foster. There was only one mistake in his innings, which for brilliancy on the off side could scarcely have been surpassed. He hit a 6 and fourteen 4's.
Hope this helps. I'll look at other Wisdens across the coming week, but I have a heavy work schedule in the next few days, so may not get to it instantly. Happy new year! Johnlp (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice work! I'm glad you've written this article, as Kiburn has been on my "to do" list for several years. I've been conscious for some time that, because we naturally tend to concentrate on the players, some significant cricket writers have been overlooked. Looking at the notes I put together in preparation for one day writing his article, I found a reference to an article that might be of use to you: [3]. I also found a list of his books that I had compiled from Amazon, and which I'll add to the article. A couple of them are on rugby union rather than cricket, so though best known for cricket he clearly wrote on rugby as well. JH (talk page) 17:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Sarastro - Thank you kindly for your comments and taking the time to look in depth. I'm going to work on it in dribs and drabs and then place my "dones" or responses all at once, but I am working on it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's some stuff from 1921 Wisden on the 1920 season.
In the Cambridge section:
Chapman, a left-hander of limitless possibilities, is regarded by many good judges as an England batsman of the future. His fine form for Cambridge was abundantly confirmed at the end of the season when he took part in the Scarborough Festival.<ref>((Cite book | title = [[Wisden Cricketers' Almanack]] | edition = 1921 | publisher = [[Wisden]] | chapter = The Universities—Cambridge| page = 324))</ref>
Report on Cambridge University v Essex, first first-class match of the season in which Chapman made 118 and 41:
Quite the feature of the match was the success of Chapman, who had failed in the Trial game, and only played as a substitute for Brooke-Taylor. Happily he did himself ull justice, and made pracxtically sure of his Blue. At the wickets for two hours and fifty minutes, he scored his 118 without giving a chance. <ref>((Cite book | title = [[Wisden Cricketers' Almanack]] | edition = 1921 | publisher = [[Wisden]] | chapter = The Universities—Cambridge| page = 329))</ref>
Report on Gents v Players at Lord's... not one of the more distinguished matches.
Except Chapman, the batsmen seemed to find [Woolley] unplayable... One of the best features of a rather disappointing match was the magnificent outfielding of Chapman.<ref>((Cite book | title = [[Wisden Cricketers' Almanack]] | edition = 1921 | publisher = [[Wisden]] | chapter = Gentlemen v. Players Matches| pages = 340–341))</ref>
Report on Gents v Players at Scarborough...
In making such a good fight [the Gentlemen] were mainly indebted to Chapman, who gave further evidence that he is the best batamong the younger amateurs. Apart from a few uncertain strokes in the slips his 101 was a splendid innings.<ref>((Cite book | title = [[Wisden Cricketers' Almanack]] | edition = 1921 | publisher = [[Wisden]] | chapter = Gentlemen v. Players Matches| pages = 341–342))</ref>
That's very kind of you. Johnlp (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a book by Stephen Chalke that has some new things on Hirst in 1906 - it is not very expensive as far as I know - it is a softback. TMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.61.242 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sarastro,
Thanks very much for taking the time to write a peer review for The Quatermass Xperiment. At first glance your comments seem very useful and constructive. Unfortunately right at this moment I am very busy in real life so it will be a few days before I get to examine the points you make in detail and amend/comment as appropriate. However, I just wanted to drop you a quick line to convey my appreciation for having a look at the article and I hope once I have had the time to work on the issues you raise, you might be able to offer some further feedback.
Thanks again - Joe King (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed peer review of Elias Abraham Rosenberg, I think your suggestions will help a lot. I'll probably ask you to take another look after I finish with the changes (got a few things going on now). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
So which Class does Storm in a Teacup (film) deserve: B, C, or Start? --George Ho (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sarastro1, unfortunately you've exceeded the FAC limit on comments against Jonathan Agnew and as such, I'll be blocking you indefinitely for disrupting our meagre attempt to take over the Wiki-cricki-verse. Actually, thanks for your generous comment and your notes, me and the D man will do our best to get these sorted out in the next 24 hours, and on behalf of him and me, thanks for your input. We never expected to get it right, not even second time; your comments are much appreciated and we'll crack on ASAP. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This Middlesex man says thanks very much for helping us improve the article - over some period of time, not just the FAC. To help keep the page tidy, would you mind if we rolled up your comments into a show/hide thingy, leaving just your support comment on view by default? --Dweller (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Ahalya recently failed the FAC. Please help improve the article by providing your suggestions and comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ahalya/archive2. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the peer review. I've finally gotten around to addressing most of your concerns, and the article's certainly better now. I'll probably bring this up for FAC before month's end, if you can double-check the article before then and note any further issues that would be great, if not that's fine as well, since it looks like you have a backlog of articles you're reviewing. I just ask since I'm trying to pre-emptively address concerns before FAC given the rather big backlog there lately. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
For some reason I forgot to watch the page or something and only now noticed your review. Thanks a lot, it's most helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you want to reply or make further comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jabari Parker/archive1?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, thanks for your help on the Elias Abraham Rosenberg peer review. I think I took care of all the points from your thorough peer review. I got some help looking for sources and was able to add a bit to the article. If you have time/interest, feel free to check over the article again and/or weigh in again at the peer review. Thanks! (totally not urgent, take your time) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you: yes, I think you're right that photographs are better wherever possible. My only qualms with the ones you found in the Sydney Mail (apart from the fact that with my limited access to software I find them difficult to download) is that the repro in the newspaper is so bad. I liked the ALT-caption you put on the Abe Waddington one: sums it up, I think! Not sure even his Mum would have recognised him from that picture. Johnlp (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting on Rihanna's Secret Body Spray Tour, I've only just seen it. Aaron • You Da One 15:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have posted more Hutton comments to the article's talk page, and hope to finish by the end of the week. I hope they help. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
With great appreciation, I award you this barnstar for completing Good Article reviews for the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive Cheers,AstroCog (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
Just want to say cheers for your feedback on the peer review. Much appreciated! -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Not that I should be surprised anymore! I've started to have a look through the Len Hutton article: there are a few nitpicks here and there, but it's a fine piece of work. I'll try and put something on the review page when I've got a bit more time, though I'd support it even as it is. I'm starting to work on what might turn out to be a pretty sizeable article (or collection of articles) at the moment in my sandbox: wish me luck. I'm not used to having quite so much information to work from: I'm finding it difficult knowing which bits to cut out and which to leave! I've only got to the end of the "Learning the game" section so far, and already it seems quite long. I'm contemplating a YellowMonkey style Ian Botham in the 1981 Ashes series article, depending on how long things get, and his obvious relevance in that series. We'll see - it may be a few months yet before too much happens... Harrias talk 21:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been staying away from FAC and other mixed martial arts in favor of bike riding and intermediate Sudoku. I made a brief and likely ill-advised appearance today to say something about course descriptions in river articles, but otherwise I've been absent. Since I know so little about cricket, mum seems best. Best of luck with the process. I hope you succeed. Finetooth (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Percy Chapman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Donnelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
... on the fine article that is Len Hutton. Johnlp (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)