Talk:E. W. Bastard/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A good piece of work. I've done a quick copy-edit and cleared up a few points. Also, I cut a few phrases I thought were unnecessary. Anything you aren't happy with, feel free to revert. Just a few questions before I pass:

• "often said to be the university's best ever": Said by who?

• This is a difficult one, because Bolton says that it is often said.. but I seem to recall something in Altham and Swanton.

• I've changed this slightly, and reffed Altham and Swanton. Harrias ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• "placed him among the 20 most prolific bowlers in the country": In terms of average or number of wickets?

• Wickets: I tend to figure that "prolific" signifies quantity, but I can see that it's still ambiguous, I'll clean up.

• Changed to "among the 20 most prolific wicket-takers in the county" - does that make it clearer? Harrias ^talk 20:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• "along with the acquisitions of Ted Tyler and George Nichols": Acquisition or acquisitions (I'm not sure here).

• I'd say plural; they came from different sources at different times.

• The matches against OUCC first team: were they trial games or practice games?

• No idea, I only have the CricketArchive scorecards for them; they aren't mentioned in Bolton.

• Bolton blamed the weather for the loss: did it rain? If so, maybe mention the sticky wicket.

• I've expanded upon this a bit: feel free to tidy the language. Harrias ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• "in 1884 as part of the team which has often been described as Oxford's best ever.": Described by who?

• As above.

• "scored 52 runs in "quick time"" Attribution in text is needed.

• Wasn't too keen on this looking back at it: have changed to simply "scored 52 runs quickly," Harrias ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Bastard "bowled with great skill on the last morning"" Again, needs attribution.

• Added. Harrias ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Somerset could only field nine men in the fixture": How did that happen? (Sorry, I've got to ask!)

• I can't give you a cited answer. I guess slightly more than I probably should in the Somerset County Cricket Club in 1885 article: I think probably a combination of their poor form, and bad luck.

• Everything else checks out.

I won't bother to put this on hold unless you haven't been able to get to it before tomorrow evening. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've offered a few quick replies, and will fix what I can in a bit. Harrias ^talk 20:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

All fine now, good to go. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)