- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 17 December 2023 [1].
- Nominator(s): Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully reviewers aren't bored of season review articles for sports clubs, as I present this one for your perusal. Inspired by the excellent work of ChrisTheDude, I've brought this one up to what I believe is FA level. This was Somerset County Cricket Club's first season in the County Championship when they provided a great shock by defeating the all-conquering Surrey side. As always, all feedback will be warmly received. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I am touched that you cite me as inspiration :-) I will endeavour to give this a review over the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "scoring 560 runs at an average of 31.11" - link average
- Already linked earlier in the sentence. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "Meetings were held at Somerset" - not sure "at Somerset" really works - you don't say "at" with a county ("at Lancashire" makes no sense). I'd say "at [specific town]", or if that level of detail isn't known then just say "Meetings were held"
- Changed to "Meetings were held at the club" for clarity. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "such as Lionel and Richard Palairet," - I'd be tempted to change that to "such as the brothers Lionel and Richard Palairet," so it doesn't look like they had a player with the mononym Lional
- "scheduled a twelve-match fixture list, including home-and-away fixtures against six of the eight other first-class counties" => "scheduled a twelve-match fixture list, consisting of home-and-away fixtures against six of the eight other first-class counties"
- "only delivered a hundred overs between them" - link overs
- " Lionel Palairet was the club's leading run-scorer by over 200 runs" - link runs
- It's linked in "run-scorer". Can switch it if you think that would be clearer? Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "There was no play on the first or last days of the game" => "There was no play on the first and last days of the game"
- Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game is linked twice
- "Lionel Palairet scored 100 runs exactly" - I think "Lionel Palairet scored exactly 100 runs" would be slightly better
- "and finished third in the Championship table with eight wins and five losses, a position they would not equal again until 1958" - this makes it sound like they didn't finish with 8 wins and 5 losses again until 1958. Suggest changing to "and finished the season with eight wins and five losses, placing third in the Championship table, a position they would not equal again until 1958"
- That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - apologies for being a dumb-ass and missing that a couple of things were in fact already linked...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a reminder that under recent changes Wikilinking more than once is allowed so long as the second mention is in a different section and is considered helpful to a reader - broadly construed. You may already be aware of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review[edit]
- File:County_Ground,_Taunton,_1895.jpg is missing author date of death. Ditto File:LCH_Palairet,_1892.png
- I think I've covered both of these now. Found the year of death for the County Ground picture, so that's included. For the Palairet one, I couldn't ascertain which of the Chaffin brothers took the photo, but they all died over 70 years ago, so I've switched it to a PD-unknown with an explanation, is that okay? Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- File:HTHewett.jpg is missing a US tag, and the tags that are given are contradictory. If the UK-specific tag is kept, details on research will need to be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I switched that image out as I couldn't find any more details, including a date of publication, for it. Added File:Ranji 1897 page 295 H. T. Hewett.jpg instead, which is another with a PD-unknown because only the photography studio information is provided.
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for this, I've made a few changes to licenses and what-not, as detailed above. Please let me know if these are okay. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- When and where was File:LCH_Palairet,_1892.png first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: Not necessarily the first time it was published, but I've found a copy of it in an 1893 book, so added that to the Commons information. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedant's corner, and I hate myself for doing this. Is the article mistitled? Should it be "Somerset County Cricket Club's 1891 season"? Because that's what it seems to be about. (If you are sticking with the current title, I have several queries about information I would expect to see and don't.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gog the Mild: Indeed, the naming of cricket team articles is an anomaly. In other sports we have:
- After the conclusion of this FAC (for simplicity) I would intend to start a discussion in the cricket project about moving all cricket team season articles to a similar format, so this would end up as 1891 Somerset County Cricket Club season. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing seems fine to me --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guerillero, hi is this a pass on sourcing based on formatting, reliability and verifiability or should a request for an "official" source review be placed at WT:FACSR? FrB.TG (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Given Guerillero's lack of response, I have added a request for a full source review. FrB.TG (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Surrey were undefeated in first-class matches and were champions-elect": does this mean they had already mathematically won the championship, or just that everyone expected them to do so?
- The second. Changed to "considered champions-elect" for clarity. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- In Somerset's last match they were three runs short of avoiding the follow-on, at 172; so since Gloucestershire's first innings was 254 apparently the follow-on score for a three day match was then 80 runs. Perhaps a footnote explaining that the rule then was not the same as it is now?
- I've added a footnote about this on the first mention of the follow-on: do you think it is worth duplicating the footnote for this instance too? Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be helpful. Could it perhaps be phrased to make it clear that the follow-on is still a rule of cricket, but the number of runs has changed? As written one could read it as saying that the follow-on is no longer a rule of cricket and that when it was a rule it was 80 runs in all circumstances. I knew what the follow-on was but am not an avid cricket fan, so I actually went to the follow-on article thinking, based on your footnote, that the rule had perhaps been abolished some time in the last few years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And mentioning that following on was compulsory for teams with deficits of 80 runs or more. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just these two minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Christie: Thanks for the review! Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Christie: Okay, tweaked the wording of the footnote, and duplicated it for the match in question. Let me know what you think. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Gog the Mild[edit]
Reserving a place. Harrias, could you give me a poke once you are in a position to respond to review comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gog the Mild: Yeah, I'm here or hereabouts. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "against six of the eight other first-class counties". Which two didn't they play and why not?
- They didn't play Nottinghamshire or Sussex. I can add that, but as for the reason, it is never plainly stated. Reading between the lines, it seems like Somerset couldn't manage a full schedule, either due to player availability or just the financial cost. There is some suggestion that Notts wouldn't agree to play them, but none of this is stated clearly enough for inclusion. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Naming the two they didn't play would help. Possibly 'for reasons which are unclear' or similar?
- Okay, lots of searching Newspapers.com has come up with something, so have added: "During a subsequent gathering in Taunton, Spencer explained that the decision to restrict their fixture list to twelve matches, which meant they did not face either Nottinghamshire or Sussex, was primarily a financial decision." Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "Slow left-arm orthodox". Perhaps append 'spin'?
- Unpiped, so it now shows the linked (and clearer) "Left-arm orthodox spin". Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "County Championship": the paragraphs are on the long side.
- I can play around with this if you really feel they are too long to meet the criteria, but realistically, the only other option is each match having its own paragraph, and I prefer long paragraphs over very short. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "a heavily rain-affected match". Optional: 'a match heavily affected by rain'.
- "just under five hours on the other." Perhaps "other" → 'third'? Or mention somewhere how long each match was.
- Changed to "There was no play on the first and last days of the three-day game and just under five hours on the other." The close repetition of "day/days" is slightly irking, but I wasn't keen on your suggestion as "the third" might have drawn readers to think it meant day three of the match. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "As of 2023, the defeat remains Somerset's fourth-largest innings loss." They have lost by more? Three times! Good lord.
- "to score his 41 runs." Suggest deleting "his".
- "Nichols bowled economically and claimed five wickets". You not gonna tell us how many runs he leaked?
- Added, although without also saying how many overs he bowled, it is half a story. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The joys of summary style.
- "and with eight minutes to go, Woods bowled out Read." Either no comma, or add one after "and". (Guess which I think works best?)
- Removed all commas. Ever. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You won't regret it.
- "Woods then collected his fifth wicket of the innings in either the final or penultimate over allowed by the time". You what? I don't think "allowed by the time" does what you want it to.
- Changed to "in either the final or penultimate over of the day's play", but I'm not sure that solves anything to be honest! Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That works. It skips over why this was the case, but non-experts won't even realise it's an issue and fans will understand why.
- "while similar sentiments were echoed". I don't think that one can echo a similar sentiment. Maybe 'while these sentiments were echoed'?
- Changed to "while similar sentiments were expressed". Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps footnotes to explain "to win by nine wickets" and "Lost by an innings and 375 runs".
- I linked the latter to Result (cricket)#Statement of result on the first appearance in the body prose. I'm loathe to try and repeat that section for all the result variants in the footnotes of this article. I wouldn't be opposed to linking more of the results to that page, if you think that might help? Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I liked your note c, and think an explanation somewhere of, just, the two main, non-obvious, expressions of victory - by x wickets; and by an innings and y runs - would avoid MOS:NOFORCELINK: "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
- Added a couple of footnotes. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest archiving the links.
- Do you have a link to the auto archiver you use? Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No. For me it's in "page/tools" at the top of the page. I must have clicked something in preferences. I have done it, revert if you don't like it.
Great stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gog the Mild: Cheers, replies given. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Just two points open I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gog the Mild: Further remedial action completed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review/ passed[edit]
In half a mo. ——Serial 13:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Newspaper sources are mostly local, which in the 19th century were thus papers of local record.
- Primary sources galore, almost solely wrt match stats and other contemporary info.
- Missing idents/archives are irrelevant since the papers are hosted by established archival sites.
- Standardise your 13-digit ISBNs in whatever fashion you choose (I'd suggest XXXX-XXXX as that ties in with your 8s).
- @Serial Number 54129: There's only one ISBN 13 that I can see. All ISBNs are presented in the format they appear in the source. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias: Bizarre! I must be going blind. You're quite correct, of course, so apologies for holding this up (although FTR, consistency within articles seems generally preferred). Nice article, many thanks! ——Serial 19:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Authors are known authorities. Publishers are respected houses.
- The source review is
almost passed. ——Serial 17:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.