Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Ashes/archive1

The Ashes

This article was the previous Cricket collaboration of the fortnight. Nominated on behalf of jguk who has done so much for cricket-related topics here; and has now left wikipedia. Although I may not be able to address specific queries, there are a fair number of wikipedians who would gladly do so.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 13:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I echo Nichalp. I am a member of the cricket wikiproject, but have played very little part in this article. I would be happy to address queries. I would certainly support. Cheers, smoddy 19:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I am looking to support this FAC, but first want an explanation as to the placement of the note about rugby late in the article. Wouldn't it be better to place a note in italics at the top about another non-related page of the same name, like they have in the Harvard University article? It doesn't make sense to have it as it is now. Harro5 00:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've fixed it. =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • You could, of course, argue that they are related, as the name was directly taken from the one series to the other, showing the cricket Ashes' importance and reach in the early Twentieth century. smoddy 07:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • They are, but a single para is too short. Perhaps you could write something longer? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll see what I can do. smoddy 14:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I have put something in at "The Ashes outside cricket". These were the only two examples I could find – are there any more? Cheers, smoddy 15:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - comprehensive, encyclopaedic and topical - Ian ≡ talk 04:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. But then I am a member of the cricket mafia. Outside opinions would be especially welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I made a few minor changes before posting this. Picky comments here important for FAC questions, rather than general article talk: Capitalisation, "The Ashes" throughout (not "the Ashes"). Would the initial "help" be better phrased: "Readers unfamiliar with cricket will find many cricketing terms used in this article explained in the main Cricket article and the List of cricket terms." Isn't "10 cm" better than "100 mm" (4 inches isn't exactly 100 mm, the urn probably isn't exactly four inches!). I think the reference to "Gladiators" in the outside cricket section is not mainstream enough to warrant a mention, but perhaps I'm a minority, here; also I think this would be the right place to mention - without overdoing it - its inclusion in works of fiction (I can think of two - as the backdrop to the film The Final Test starring Jack Warner and Robert Morley with cameo appearances by several England players of the time, and the intergalactic importance of the little urn in Douglas Adams' book Life, the Universe, and Everything and Adams' quirky reference to cricket's oft-perceived eccentricity - "Only on Earth could they make a game" out of it). Otherwise, a very nice article. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I have addressed these concerns. The Gladiators reference is one of the few things that I could think of to flesh out that section. I have changed the units (for some unexplained reason, Bobblewik had changed them from something far more explicable). I haven't put all that stuff in the section, but if you want to add something, please go ahead. smoddy 16:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Cyberjunkie ^TALK 14:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I know nothing about rugby, but after looking at the article, it explained a lot about one of the most important sport rivialries/events I have ever heard about. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, this article is about cricket, you know! There is another article about the rugby Ashes... -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)