Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Peer review/2008

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket‎ | Peer review

Geoffrey Boycott

edit

Hoping to put this up for FAC when all the issues are sorted. Just completed a copy edit, and would like to know what more work needs to be done. Thanks SGGH speak! 13:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a very quick look, it seems a very good article. I did notice a typo in citation 75, where the "y" is missing from "Geoffrey". I think that the article would benefit from a photo of Boycott at the start, right after the infobox. Did he actually write the books that appeared under his name, or were they ghosted? JH (talk page) 19:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they were ghosted. I got his Bloody Paradise one from the library many years back and I'm sure he collaborated with some guy at The Sun or wherever. Although I don't recall a bimbo on page three. BlackJack | talk page 19:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few more points. "Test" should be capitalised. There are five Wisden Cricketers of the Year each year, so it should be "a" rather than "the". As for his occupying the crease "sometimes for days", I'm not sure that even Boycott ever batted through two or more whole days, so I'd delete the phrase.
He did, and he once batted one every day of a test match. I have addressed the test->Test issue, and the "a" SGGH speak! 08:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the random reading of sections

I guess I should add my usual disclaimer here. Several of the comments are opinions and may not be worth acting upon, in which case feel free to skip them. Tintin 09:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • After a low scoring series of warm up matches, he hit 73 in the opening test, and another 76 in the fourth, averaging 46.99 and taking three wickets with the ball by the end of England's unsuccessful tour - why unsuccessful
    • They were defeated, I'll make this more clear. SGGH speak! 08:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait. My point was that England did not lose the series. We are talking about the 1964-5 tour to South Africa here and England won that 1-0. It was the return series in 1965 that England lost. Btw, Boycs also hit a 117 in the fifth Test. Tintin 09:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculation arose over his place, and after a duck and a two hour and twenty minute long 16 he was dropped and replaced by Eric Russell. - not enough context (third Test, I guess). (Btw, it is 2:20 as per Wisden, but 1:50 according to CI)
  • I have added a bit of context, but there isn't too much, it already has his scores and things, I have just added what Wisden thought of his knock. SGGH speak! 12:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He hit a form of "brighter cricket" during the first and second tests, hitting a high score of 84 and taking wickets with the ball. - 84 in 4 hours and 234 balls. Not a good example for bright cricket
  • Boycott's highest Test score of 246* came against India in June 1967 on his home ground of Headingley, but he was dropped for the next match for slow scoring and selfish attitude. - Considering that almost all the Test innings upto this point has found a mention, the circumstances and controversy over the 246* deserves more space.
  • A back injury in 1967 forced Boycott to miss half the season, and an average of 32 against the Australians during the ashes was unspectacular with Boycott not once passing 50. Domestically, his injury also limited his contribution, however he did hit five centuries before he was forced to stop playing in June. -

there is apparently a change of season here from 1967 to 1968 but the reader is not informed.

  • While he was left out of the first three tests against the World XI, he played in the fourth and scored 15 and 64, and in the summer final of the competition scored 157. - 157 was in the final Test of the series, not summer final of the competition
    • Sorted.
  • Till this point, almost every Test innings gets a mention but there is nothing much else. Would be good to add more meat to it, even otherwise, it is probably better to skip the insignificant matches and series altogether than mentioning the scores.


  • and his slowest scores, with strike rates in the low 40s, remain par with the slowest strike rates of Michael Atherton (36.9 at Edgbaston in 1998) and Tim Robinson (27.2 at Old Trafford in 1987). - this is a very arbitrary comment and random choice of innings. What is the point being made here ?
    • I didn't choose the innings. McKinstry does, I have attributed the comments to him.
  • Peter Lever also spent an entire evening discussing with Boycott his vulnerability when playing the hook stroke, with which he was to get out on more than one occasion.[22] - out of context in the place where this is included Tintin 02:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supposed to illustrate his technique and any issues with it, in keeping with the rest of the paragraph, but I agree it is a little out of place, shall I just say he was vulnerable to getting out playing the hook? SGGH speak! 08:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put your points into bullets so I can organise myself more easily, hope you don't mind. SGGH speak! 10:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nice work.
  • However, needs a "fresh eyes" c-e, as I can see numerous glitches and unexplained incidents of jargon.
  • Also needs to be reviewed for citations - every major claim needs a "says who" approach before FAC.
  • I've tagged a couple such.
    • Done these two, all cited in the cite of the next sentence but I have made it clearer
  • Technique section: Nice for an article for Wisden, but too detailed for Wikipedia.
    • I'll trim it down

--Dweller (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me bullet pointing for ease of comment. SGGH speak! 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashes

edit

A former featured article that one reviewer (see talk page) called "the worst FA I've ever seen". With justification because this article was quite abysmal in terms of its matches and series section. I've tried to take out out the POV and the imbalance by mentioning (nearly) all the series and putting everything into a properly objective perspective as series that belonged within a particular era of the contest's history.

I don't pretend that the article now is anywhere near perfect and it may still be a long way short of genuine FA standard. Although I've tried to make the best of the match and series section I would prefer to remove it completely because I believe that this article should be about the trophy and the legend: the series belong in the various tour and series articles that have been created.

I've given it a start-class rating as I don't think the citations are complete, mainly because someone has used Chris Harte ad nauseum when really they should have used Wisden.

It would be nice to get such an important cricket topic up to genuine A and even FA standard, so please review it and say where it can still be improved. BlackJack | talk page 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Although I've tried to make the best of the match and series section I would prefer to remove it completely because I believe that this article should be about the trophy and the legend: the series belong in the various tour and series articles that have been created." I think that something about the invididual series should remain, to give an overview of how the balance of power has shifted to and fro over time between England and Australia. You don't really get that in an article dealing with an inidividual series. JH (talk page) 08:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again a week on I think the match/series section does have a place as long as it is balanced, which was the main complaint when the article was "demoted"; and as long as it does not take over the article which is essentially about the trophy and the legend. As such, I think the series section provides the background drama as it were, while the details about Jardine and the rest of the cast belong in their specific articles. BlackJack | talk page 19:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of cricket

edit

The article has been rated start-class but the only one of the B-class criteria it failed on is the need for inline citations. These can be supplied but I would like a peer review to see if anyone can suggest other improvements. As this is one of the project's "flagship" top-importance articles, we ought to be aiming well beyond B-class. BlackJack | talk page 04:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not especially familiar with A class criteria, but it really could do with a decent Lead section, per WP:LEAD. Four paragraphs would probably be appropriate, somehow managing to summarise the key themes! Lol! --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section dealing with the future should be removed. Not only is it a breach of WP:CRYSTAL, it's off-topic. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a first reading my concerns are to do the comprehensiveness of the article. There is an overwhelming focus on cricket in England (somewhat understandable given it was played nowhere else for some time) and cricket elsewhere seems included as an afterthought as it were. What seems to me to be undue weight is given to the period where cricket was a pastime and a vehicle for gambling in areas of southern England and little weight attached to the period where it is a mass spectator sport followed by hundreds of millions. The development of Test cricket and the ICC is barely discussed; the shift in cricket's "centre of gravity" to the sub-continent is only touched upon when discussing Twenty/20. There is little or no mention of cricket's role in post-colonial identity in places such as Australia, India and the West Indies.
Don't get me wrong, the content on the early history of cricket is fascinating and to my mind, well written. So much so, I think it deserves an article of its own, freed from the burden of supporting an article that carries the comprehensive title of "History of cricket". Given the above, my early thoughts are:
  • Remove all content relating to cricket post 1860 (an arbitrary date I know, but can be justified given it was around that time that Grace appeared, international tours started, Wisden, overarm bowling etc.)
  • Rename the resulting article Early history of cricket
  • Expand the article with a focus on two main items;
    • The development of the laws, techniques and equipment of the game from its beginnings to what would be recognisable as cricket today; and
    • The development of organised cricket (clubs, championships etc.) which the article at present does quite well.
  • Create a new article with the title "History of cricket", written in summary style with a comprehensive focus on cricket worldwide.
I don't mean to appear too critical and I also don't wish to offend anyone; I think the article is well written, encyclopedic and informative and the contributors should be congratulated. I have no real concerns with the content as it is; however I feel an article entitled History of cricket should be comprehensive and cover cricket on a worldwide basis. I am aware this seems rather drastic and doesn't provide much helpful advice about improving the article as it stands. I am also aware that creating an article along the lines I am suggesting is a major task. I am happy to discuss concerns or points raised here if you wish. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1789 cancelled tour of France, by John Sackville, is missing   OrangeKnight (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with the idea of focusing on the development of laws, techniques, etc, and of organised cricket, but don't understand why it should be renamed early history of cricket : history of cricket is history of cricket, it should : deal with these development and sum up the history from the origins to nowadays. OrangeKnight (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can argue that concentrating on the early history is justifiable, because the more recent history is covered in other, more specific, articles. If all the more recent history was covered in depth, this article could become impossibly long. But those other articles (eg the ones on early Test cricket history) should have "See also" prominent links within this article. JH (talk page) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests via old method (effectively an archive)

edit
  • Bodyline I've made quite a few changes to this article before I realised it was FA class so I'm a bit concerned. Most of my changes were based on info in the Douglas Jardine article however none of it is really sourced. Having said that, none of the info in bodyline is directly sourced either. I've tried to make clear why I felt the info is important in the talk and it seems better now (assuming the DJ article info is correct). I also feel there is a bit more info in the DJ article that maybe should be moved or copied to the bodyline article but I'm hesitant to change an FA any more by myself especially given that I don't know much about the controversy. There's also an issue that needs to be addressed in the talk. On a related note, I also think the DJ article needs to be trimmed since the bodyline article should be the main article for the controversy. We probably should go in to a bit of detail in DJ especially in relation to his role but probably not as much as we currently do IMHO. Nil Einne 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bart King - Well...I think I've finished my work on the article. It is up for Peer Review right now, and when that is done, I'm going to try it out as a Good Article Candidate. After all the input is gathered up there, I'll try putting it together for an FAC. In the meantime, any other advice or opinions that can be given by members of the project would be most welcome. I've put a lot of work into it, so if you could at least take a look, I'd be grateful. Once this is done, I'll take a little break back with WP:HV before tackling the rest of the Philadelphian cricketers. Thanks a lot.--Eva bd 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stands to reason, in fairness. I've noticed that no ground that I can find has been rated; I'll go through and rate them at some point. In the meantime I've rated Lord's as High. AMBerry (talk | contribs)
I rated The Oval and Melbourne Cricket Ground as high also. Ansell 10:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Imran Khan - I was surprised to see it wasn't even part of the WikiProject! - Ozzykhan 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't surprise me, very few grounds had the template on their talk pages until I started adding them... meantime I've rated Imran Khan as High importance and B class. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[1]]. Could someone assess this article. I have not done any work on this but when I stumbled across this article and found that it has not been assessed I thought that I should make you aware of this. I believe that this is a good article and could result in a a good rating if it is assessed. I would be glad if you were able to give this article a rating.

Thanks 02blythed 19:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian cricket team in Pakistan in 1998-99
Australian cricket team in Pakistan in 1994-95
Australian cricket team in Pakistan in 1988-89
Australian cricket team in Pakistan in 1982-83 - - Ozzykhan 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the article on Naseem Ashraf yesterday, after seeing that it was on the list of "most wanted articles for Pakistan Cricket", would like a review. -- Zainub 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- 1998-99 Asian Test Championship - 2001-02 Asian Test Championship - Ozzykhan 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an A class article to me. Could do with one or two more direct links to the sources for the statistics and possibly an expanded lead section but that doesn't diminish its A status as comparable to other FA cricket lists. Ansell 23:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok I've added cites so now all tables have sources. The batting/bowling feats have also been sourced and the lead section has also been expanded. Monsta666 11:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone have a look at Kyle McCallan and do an assessment on it. I wrote it a while ago but it currently doesn't have a rating. I'm quite proud of it and think that with a bit more work it could be got up to Good article status. Andrew nixon 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hadlow - The section on Hadlow Cricket Club is not referenced, although a list of cricket sources is given. Would this section be better split off the main article to form its own article? Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It probably would be, though not necessarily for that reason. It just doesn't seem a very good "fit" within the article on the village. Ordinarily a village cricket team wouldn't be notable, but in this case its history appears to be distinguished enough that it probably is and so merits its own article. JH (talk page) 17:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is split, it needs to be born in mind that Hadlow Cricket Club is still active (AFAIK) and at least a paragraph on the modern club will be needed. Mjroots (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no objection on the Hadlow talk page, so I'm going to split the section off into a new article Hadlow Cricket Club.Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hadlow Cricket Club now has its own article, the remarks re referencing still apply, as although the sources are mentioned, there is no way to tell which statement comes from which source.   Done Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC) The referencing issue has been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Peer_review/2008&oldid=1145641832"