Talk:Australian cricket team in England in 1884

Rating

According to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, the criteria for B-Class are as follows:

1.The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

2.The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

3.The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

4.The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.

5.The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

6.The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

In my opinion, the article as currently written meets these criteria. Subject to a further review to eliminate any remaining typos or grammatical errors, the article is ready for the GA process. --Old Lanky (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Australian cricket team in England in 1884/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 19:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this is a good article, and I could probably pass it in good faith as a Good article with very few changes at all. Therefore, take the majority of this review as "nitpicking" that isn't necessarily required to pass this review, it is just ways that I think it can improve.

Lead

• Unless quoting someone, there isn't really any need for references in the lead: all information should be provided later in the article and referenced there. Nothing you have stated is particularly controversial, so I see no need for additional references in the lead. No problem with the note remaining though.

Good point. I've relocated these to main text or removed as appropriate.

• "A tri-series.." I would interpret a "tri-series" as one which involves three teams, not three Tests: perhaps just rephrase as "A three match series.."

Yes, three-match series is unambiguous

• I know it is common usage in some places, but personally I dislike the capitalisation of "first" "second" "third" etc. when applied to Tests.

I think I tend to use First Test because Test is always capitalised but there is no grammatical reason why the numeral should be too. Changed as suggested.

• Not a major issue either way, but I think it would be visually more appealing if the numbers in the last sentence of the lead (18, 7, 7) were written out (eighteen, seven, seven).

Agreed.

Australian squad

• Not convinced you need the abbreviations in the Bowling style column.

On balance, I don't think they're necessary as they are not used later in the article. Influenced by Playfair probably!

Tour preparations and voyages

• "..in a timeless match.." This needs explaining for laypeople: the fact it ended will confuse people!

Removed "timeless".

• Link not out.

Done.

• I'd move note 3 to the end of the sentence, it looks a little odd where it is.

Done.

• "Scott played for the tourists, .." Given that at this stage the Australian side is still in Australia, the use of "tourists" is a little odd.

Done. Team was called the Fourth Australians so I've used that.

• "..which was the last time South Australia needed odds to compete.." What does this mean?

Added explanatory note.

Tour itinerary

• Use capital letters in the headings.

Done

• Lord's and The Oval need London adding after them for consistency, and the fact that not everyone knows where they are.

Done.

Test series

• Remove the note from the heading.

Done.

• A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 67#Scorecards on wikipedia drew a consensus that full names should be used rather than initials in scorecards. An obvious exception to that is when players are primarily known by their initials. Given the era of cricket that this article covers, I don't see a problem, but be aware that it might be changed by other editors towards that consensus, in which case a discussion at WT:CRIC would be more appropriate that reverting the change.

Fine. I'll go with the consensus.

• "..was made 12th man." Would prefer "twelfth man."

Done.

• "The match was also the origin of Old Trafford's reputation for wet weather, the game being drawn after rain had made the first day unplayable." Do the sources actually state that this was the origin of the reputation, or just that the game was drawn after the first day was unplayable? I've been to Old Trafford three times, and it has rained all three times: twice there was no cricket played at all; so I got the impression from that, not this match! In general it seems a little too much like OR: if someone has said it, it might be best to quote "So and so claims that this match was the origin.." Or something similar. Harrias ^talk 20:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Harte actually says this, probably tongue in cheek, so I've done a paraphrase. It doesn't always rain up here, I should add. We get snow too!

• "..and never played very difficult." Make it clear that this is referring to how easy or difficult it was to bat.

Amended.

• "..managed to be all out.." This is not really encyclopaedic language, try to make the comment a little more neutral.

True. Changed to: "were all out".

• "..Boyle taking 6/42.." Explain what this notation means.

Done.

• "..scoring 180–9." "..to 160–9.." "..England were 90–3.." etc. WP:CRIC#STYLE advises to use slashes, not dashes when shortening scores.

Done.

• "261 runs were added while.." MOS:NUM advises not to start a sentence with numerals; probably best to rephrase this sentence rather than write the number out!

Done.

• The article uses a lot of quotes, particularly in the summary of the second Test: while some quotes can add value to an article, adding so many can devalue them, and is a little peacocky, so it might be worth cutting some of them down.

Agreed. Have edited some of these out.

Reviewed to the end of the Second Test section, more review will follow. Feel free to work on my comments above, and ping me on my talk page if I seem to forget about this review! Harrias ^talk 20:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

These are all very good points, Harrias, and I do want the article to be as complete as possible so I will apply them. I'm still on a learning curve and much of your review is useful advice. Thank you very much for your time and thoroughness. --Old Lanky (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Have completed all the amendments and added comments to each point above. Thank you again. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• "In the middle of a sentence, "the" doesn't need capitalising for "the Oval".

Done.

• While talking about the Oval; be consistent; in the itinerary table, you list it as Kennington Oval, while elsewhere simply as "the Oval". Use one format throughout.

Done.

• Link followed on to Follow-on

Done.

• It looks like you've got the second innings in the wrong place in the match summary: surely it should be under England?

How did that happen? Done.

• "..taking 4–19" as before, use a slash rather than a dash here.

Done.

Other matches

• Some explanation of "occasional XI" is needed, be it through a note or a new article.

I think the explanation would distract rather than help so I've just called it a team chosen by Lord Sheffield.

• Some more links would be helpful in this section. The table was a long time ago, so links can probably be repeated from there into this section.

Good point. Done.

• Link Hat-trick#Cricket

Done.

• "..the other two big northern teams.." Is there a source describing them as such? Otherwise this is a little POV-ish.

Done.

• "..in which the match total was only 255." This might be better phrased as "..in which only 255 runs were scored in total."

Done.

• Link George Wyatt (cricketer), Henry Phillips (cricketer) and Dick Barlow. Nothing wrong with red links.

Done.

Statistical summary

• Explain "change bowler"; there may be something you can link to in Glossary of cricket terms

Removed the term.

• "Eight fielders held more than twenty catches, the most being Bonnor's 31." I think this needs to be "Eight fielders held more than twenty catches each, the most being Bonnor's 31."

Done.

Additional comments

• Would it be worth mentioning that this was the first home series since the 1882 series in which "The Ashes" obituary was posted?

Yes. I've added it to the lead.

• In A History of Cricket, Altham describes the side as "apt to be ranked on an equality with its great predecessor, but I can never feel that it quite reached that level." He does however say that the Australians certainly had the better of England in the drawn Tests and that they had a more arduous schedule. He also says that George Giffen described the England side in the last Test as "the strongest that ever represented her, at least in the nineteenth century."

A friend has this book so I looked it up. I really must read the book sometime.

• In "W.G.", Grace describes Giffen as Australia's "best all-round man of the team", though he gives the "laurels" to Spofforth for his bowling.

Haven't got access to this book. Can you please add the information and provide the page numbers? Thanks.

Harrias ^talk 16:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You are very prompt. Please bear with me as I'm ridiculously busy at present but will try and address points within next four of five days most. Thank you again. --Old Lanky (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• No worries, there's no rush. I'm watching this page, so when you respond I'll take another look. If I miss it, just ping me on my talk page. This time of year things tend to get busy! Harrias ^talk 21:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

All done except the Grace book as I don't have access to it and would need page numbers. Could you please give it another once-over to make sure I haven't missed anything or made any typoes when doing the changes. Thank you again for all your help. The article looks much better with your input. --Old Lanky (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian cricket team in England in 1884. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012043538/http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Seasons/ENG/1884_ENG_Australia_in_England_1884.html to http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Seasons/ENG/1884_ENG_Australia_in_England_1884.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)