User talk:Sarastro1/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Look Mickey/archive1

Can you strike issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Look Mickey/archive1 as they are resolved to your satisfaction.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a favor

I'm terribly sorry to jump in and ask this of you, but I noticed your copyedit work you did on "Terms of Endearment". I'm currently trying to get "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" up to FA, and although it has passed GA, A-Class review, and has been copyedited, the reviewers are asking for another copyedit. If you have time, is there anyway you could take a quick look over it? If not, it's no big deal. Thank you though!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad that FAR is cracking down on prose, I guess I just don't like being given examples; I'd rather have the issues pointed out. But I totally get that that is time-consuming. Thanks for the articles as well, they seem very, very helpful. I'll try to continue combing over my writing to get it up to shape.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on Gilligan's promotion. Can I prevail on you to briefly revisit Larwood, and add an image review to your kind contribution? Other than matters that we have previously discussed, and I think resolved, I don't think there are problems. The non-free image of bodyline in action is surely justified. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Arsène Wenger

Hello Sarastro. I've decided to re-nominate Arsène Wenger at FAC and was wondering if you could spare the time have another look at it? Any sort of comment would be appreciated, cheers. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having a second look at the article. Have decided to withdrawn it so that the prose can be tighten up; think I'll return to this next summer should I want to nominate it for a third time – I'll probably ping you if it comes to that. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Garcia

Hello there. I definitely plan to tend to the remaining review comments! Zepppep (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

FAC Help

Hello, I recently nominated an article, "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" for FAC and some of the editors who are voting said that it needs to better better in terms of prose. It is currently receiving a copy-edit from Mark Arsten, who suggested I talk to you. He said that you are an expert on prose compliance. Is there anyway you could take a quick look at the article? Thanks for reading this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for it to be withdrawn and I'll just work on it for awhile. Either an informal review or a PR would be perfectly fine with me. Whatever you are able to do. Thank you!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have any free time in the next few weeks, I have set up a Peer Review of the article here. Thank you very much.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Lionel Palairet

I've completed the cricket career section of his article and moved it into the main article now. I'm still working on the rest of his life and his playing style (lots of sources that say much the same things for the latter). Just wondered if you could have a poke around any of your sources to see if you have any additional information? Speaking of sources, I've got a copy of Archie's Last Stand, about the 1922-23 tour of New Zealand; don't know if you have it, or even if it has much useful information, but if you do want me to have a look, let me know. Harrias ^talk 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Fry book definitely sounds worth it. Like you suggest, I've got a fair bit about his style and elegance. Once I've got it written up, if you have a glance at it and think there is anything you've read that I've missed, perhaps then it would be worth having a look at that sort of stuff. With regards to the fielding position / Tate drop, I'm not planning on mentioning it at all. I'm willing to take your advice on this, but I think that really it is relevant to Tate, perhaps Braund and maybe MacLaren. In this article it would just be a case of "this bloke was moved and someone else moved into where he had been, who then dropped a catch." Definitely heading to GA and probably FA with this. Once I've got this more or less wrapped up, I want to go back and have a bit of a polish of Claire Taylor and take that towards FA, so any copy-editting you are willing to do on that article would be much appreciated. (I still need to add a Style and technique section.) Harrias ^talk 20:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

How reliable is the suggestion about the school lineage? It sounds a little too much like an author looking "for an angle" to me. Braund is certainly on my list of players that I want to work on. Along with every bugger else that played for Somerset and did well. Or didn't particularly do well! And Thursday is fine; I'm busy enough to be in no rush. Harrias ^talk 20:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It clearly made a big difference. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, with names like that it's an easy enough mistake to make! Given the comb I just ran through the article, I should probably just review the article for GA and have it done with, but a few people over there seem to be getting a bit funny about editors reviewing work in their own field, and among familiar editors, so I'll leave it for the time being. Harrias ^talk 21:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wenger FAC

I don't know that much about your football, but I know enough to realize that his methods are not everyone's cup of tea. My plan is to get my non-Wiki schedule cleared up and continue going through the article on Thursday or Friday. Hopefully it won't take too long once I get started; it's actually good that you're busy, as I can't make any promises on when I'll be done. As soon as I finish, I'll ping you. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I went back to the article earlier today and found some issues that leave me uncertain about the article, so I'm going to stop copy-editing at this point. Feel free to start whatever work you had planned on doing. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

	Christmas greetings for 2012 and best wishes for 2013 May you succeed in all you do.
	The image is thought to show the monster "ARBCOM" (arm raised, with firebrand) about to deliver retribution to a cowering Wikipedian (on the right). An alternative theory says it depicts Raul in the process of appointing a new TFA delegate. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Munir Malik/GA1

Hi, any chance you could have a look at this review. There is no stuff about his personal life. Also there is very little info mentioned about his First-class career. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

GAN

Hi, your article has been reviewed, please have a look here. Regards, Zia Khan 13:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your article at GAN is promoted here. Also, I've responded to your concerns at Talk:Munir Malik/GA1. Regards, Zia Khan 04:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit request

Good morning Sarastro

I am currently working on the article Gateshead International Stadium. It was promoted through GAN a few months ago and has just had a thorough peer review by User:Giants2008, who suggested that I ask you to give the article a copy-edit to iron out any remaining creases or to spot any jargon terms and suchlike prior to a nomination at FAC. If you are able to do so, I would be most grateful :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to go through this one for me. I've made some changes per your suggestion (it was a tad difficult as I couldn't think of too many synonyms for 'stadium', for some reason, but there we are). Meetthefeebles (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've implemented the changes suggested and things look a lot better now. I think it may now be ready for a crack at FAC. Thanks a lot for taking the time and trouble to look over this one for me, it is very much appreciated. Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Mike Capel

I've responded to you comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mike Capel/archive1. If you could look over the Personal life section, which I am confident is at FA standards, that would be appreciated until I can copy-edit the other sections. Albacore (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:

Spent yesterday evening with my in-laws, so read into that what you will! The article looks pretty tidy; I'd say that despite the autobiography, it should be okay for GA given the lower comprehensiveness boundary. My own take on that is that an article that sufficiently covers the cricket career is fine for GA, but more detail is probably needed for FA. Harrias ^talk 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Have done a little work of my own on Jack Crossland, one of those typical northern chuckers. I wondered, given your work on Mold, if you might have some information lying around that could improve the article some more, and make it a potential GA candidate? Harrias ^talk 16:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm away from home at the moment, so I haven't really had access to my books yet to attack the article from a more rounded perspective! An interesting chap to have come across almost by chance though! Harrias ^talk 21:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I was quite surprised by how much my books actually had. I had a quick look at the ACS sources you mentioned, but I think it would be too much effort given there probably isn't anything much more significant. MacLaren seems to be coming along reasonably well; I haven't had much of a look through that book on the 1922–23 New Zealand tour yet, ping me if I don't mention it before a peer review or something! Harrias ^talk 21:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done a little bit of work on our article on bowling average; it was one of the oldest articles marked as needing some attention. A lot of what was in the article before was unreferenced, even though it was informative. I've reworked the article so that it is hopefully more useful, although unfortunately I haven't been able to keep everything. I'm not sure whether it could really be a good article candidate in the future; the scope is difficult to pin down. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Harrias ^talk 21:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

EngVar in TXF

Re this edit summary—yeah, The X-Files universally uses AmEng. It's a US–Canadian production but more the former than the latter, so European English would be best avoided; however, in that particular instance I think "series" still works. Hope that answers what you were asking. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Adelaide leak

This is a note to let the main editors of Adelaide leak know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 14, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 14, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Adelaide leak was the revelation to the press of a dressing-room incident during the third cricket Test match of the "Bodyline" series of 1932–33 between England and Australia. During the course of play on 14 January 1933, the Australian Test captain Bill Woodfull was struck over the heart by a ball delivered by Harold Larwood (incident pictured). On his return to the dressing room, Woodfull was visited by the England manager Pelham Warner who enquired after Woodfull's health, but to Warner's embarrassment, the latter said he did not want to speak to him owing to England's Bodyline tactics. The matter became public knowledge when someone present leaked the exchange to the press; such leaks were practically unknown at the time. In the immediate aftermath, many people assumed Jack Fingleton, a full-time journalist, was responsible. Fingleton later wrote that Donald Bradman, Australia's star batsman, disclosed the story. Bradman always denied this, and continued to blame Fingleton. Woodfull's earlier public silence on the tactics had been interpreted as approval; the leak was significant in persuading the Australian public that Bodyline was unacceptable. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Sixth Extinction II

First off, let me say thank you so much for all your help; it is seriously appreciated! The article looks so beautiful now compared to what it used to look like. I re-nominated it a few days ago, but no one has commented yet, but I just thought I'd let you know. I'll give the article another look over to make sure little words haven't been dropped or anything like that. But once again, thank you so much!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Crosby Garrett Helmet GA review

Thanks for your help with the Crosby Garret Helmet GA review, I've responded at Talk:Crosby Garrett Helmet/GA1. Prioryman (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ganteaume

Sorry, I was just adding some thoughts to the review, I wasn't actually reviewing it. Don't take my comments as required pass/fail stuff. Guettarda (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

At a loss

I'm seriously at a loss to see where this doesn't make sense. It follows on perfectly. Please illustrate what is wrong

Once the team arrived in Australia, Jardine quickly alienated the press by refusing to give team details before a match and being uncooperative during interviews. The press printed some negative stories as a result and the crowds barracked as they had done on his previous tour, which made him angry. Arthur Mailey stated that 'an outside war began.' Jardine was 'perhaps a trifle cynical,' but not 'unamusing' but was 'hostile to the Australian press.

Cdomm (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So Mailey, who wrote a contemporary account is off no real importance despite being a former test cricketer and journalist. Jardine was constrained in his book and didn't actually write it anyway, Larwood didn't write his(GHosted 30 years later), Bradman was hardly objective and writing 17 years later, Fingleton(Many years later). I think I'll leave well alone here as one of two contemporary accounts is off no importance.Your whole reply, which seems to suggest I have written twenty lines from Maile (2 in fact)y, shows a lack of knowledge of the sources. There are in fact over a 100 books on bodyline(see Padwicks Bibliog) including bound newspaper reports. I wonder when a major test cricketer who was there has ever been an uninvolved commentator. Don't repl - I forget, these edits are 'owned' account closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.165.196 (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I enclose a message from the other editor which he posted today.

About my incorrect use of WP:ROLLBACK in the Bodyline article

Hi Cdomm,

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. The use of the rollback function was made in haste and in error. While I could make excuses, they would be hollow and disingenuous: as long-time editor, I have no valid excuses at all; I was quite simply wrong; I simply should have known better. I unreservedly apologise for my mistake.

It appears that you may have become disillusioned with the Wikipedia project, and it would be reasonable to presume my ill-advised edit has contributed to this. I again offer my sincere apology... and an invitation to join WikiProject Cricket

Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Cdomm (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply here, as you have lost interest. It's interesting that you have chosen to ignore every point I made except one. Perhaps I'm being unfair to Mailey, but ... One of two contemporary accounts, you write. What about Kippax? Larwood (he wrote a book in 1933)? Sutcliffe (1935)? Carr (1935)? Warner (1942)? Fingleton (1946)? Bowes (1949)? If you want 1933 books: Bruce Harris, Jardine (he was not ghosted), The Barracker at Bay, The "Sporting" English, and several others not including newspaper reports and editorials. For the rest of your comments, I'm afraid I don't quite get your point on "over 100 books", and some of your other points seem to have been mixed up in the formatting. I do not claim to own the article, and actually wrote very little of it: on the contrary, I consider, as I said at your talk page, that it needs a lot of work, including some on contemporary reactions such as Mailey's. BUT, balanced and not just giving one commentator's views. And I invited you to take it to the talk page to gain consensus, which you have not yet done. But please see the other points I made. And quite what this has to do with using rollback (which has very specific limitations on its use: hence, I imagine, the apology), I am not sure. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Larwoods account was heavily ghosted. Jardine's was the work of a reuters representative. 1942 is not 1933. 1949 is hardly contemporary unless I'm missing something. Sutcliffe was heavily ghosted and had to seek content approval. You see it's not as simple as spouting names - you have to know the context in which the book was written. Mailey's is actually the only freely written contemporary account - all the others were heavily mediated and as I pointed out, you dismiss him as an univolved commentator! 1942, 1949 contemporary accounts! You see what I mean. Bowes book, one of the better player biogs, is heavily expurgated (or he would have lost his accreditation) My point on 100 books is perhaps in the 70 odd not mentioned in the article, there may be something fundamental somebody has missed. Most of the 'pop' books rehash third hand rubbish about the tour. Frith's is the best researched but his obsession with turning everything into a tragedy ruins it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdomm (talk • contribs) 07:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither Jardine nor Sutcliffe were ghosted, and what precisely was "expurgated" from Bowes? This is taking a strange turn, and you are still ignoring every other point I made (including other contemporary books). I will not reply further, although you are once more beginning to appear familiar to me. Drop the stick. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Sutcliffe's book was written by Basil Easterbrook. Bowes' manuscript was submitted to the MCC for approval as all books (until Laker's Over to Me which toned down his views on Sellars, Jardin)e(the original manuscript was an homage) but particularly Allen whom he had good reason to dislike) As I say, Jardine's was penned from conversation's by a Reuter's man. If you believe there's any credibility in the anodine stuff that was published, I could give many examples but if you read Rod Marsh's first biography (approved by the ACB) and his account of Lawry's declaration when he was 92 not out, compared to his later version(not approved) and the one's by Ian Chappell(not approved by ACB). Player biogs are mostly rubbish reaching their nadir with Graeme Pollocks were he 'manged to get 274.' If you think they shed any light on bodyline then re-read Frith and the GO Allen letters. No English cricket book written by anyone still employed by or relying on the county game was anything but a watered down 'approved' affair until quite recently. There are still no books that tell you FR Foster was very peculiar, Brian Sellars never spoke to his men on a personal basis, why Coxon left Yorkshire or even the truth about D'Oliviera or that DS Sheppard would not tour South Africa meaning he would not be shoehorned in as capt in 54/5,or that VWC Jupp missed a year of cricket because he was in prison for running a man over or why Bairstow was really preferred to Neil Smith(good enough to keep wicket for the county champions) Fr what it's worth, as a player Biog read Scovell on Laker, or Peter Walker's book.

Fender

Apologies for the slow progress of the peer review. I have recently been fighting an edit war on one of my earlier FAC noms and dealing with significant issues on two others, all of which has eaten into my editing time. I hope I will be able to pick up on Percy later this evening; what is your timescale for taking the article forward? Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that you are looking to include a Webster cartoon; I meant to ask you if this was possible (dates might be awkward for PD). In the meantime, just to let you know, the Neville Cardus FAC is up and running. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Scorecards

"..quick, easy tricks.." What sort of scorecard are you aiming for; a similar sort to that in Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics? If so, I would suggest writing the article, and asking me to do the scorecard; unless tables is something that you really want to get better at, it's probably the simplest way around it! Harrias ^talk 18:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That does have two innings, displayed next to each other. The only downside with that style is that is doesn't show any changes in batting order, which can lead to some confusion. I'm happy to do it, and unless you're going to start doing lots with tables, it probably isn't worth trying to get your head around them too much! Harrias ^talk 18:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts when I saw that British Asian Cup had been nominated for GA, but to be honest, I think anything involving Shane Warne probably eases through notability without a problem. While it may not be a particularly notable match cricketing-wise, I think the T20 glitz creates enough non-trivial mentions for it to survive an AfD. And if it is notable, it can be Good/Featured. I'll have a look through Jeacocke, and see what can be extracted for a DYK. Harrias ^talk 17:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've created the DYK nomination for Jeacocke (Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Jeacocke) if you can think of a better way of wording the "cricket against two men" hook, please feel free to modify it, or add an alternative. Harrias ^talk 19:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeacocke

I confess that I know almost nothing about Alfred Jeacocke, but I shall read the article with interest. Lemmon's book is a good one. I also have Gordon Ross's history of Surrey from a decade or two earlier, but it's more chatty in tone and not as informative. JH (talk page) 09:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've read it now. It's good stuff. :) Jeacocke seems not to have been your typical amateur, if he was up at 3am to work at Smithfield Market. The Controversies section is a good illustration of how the modern idea that the game was much more "gentlemanly" in the old days is a little wide of the mark. It's interesting to see that Fender's press reports from the 1920-1 tour may not have been the only reason why Lord Harris disliked him. JH (talk page) 10:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Tup Scott

User:Old Lanky expanded the article on Scott and promoted it for GA, but he has now joined the long list of cricket editors to have retired. (Although, if he's anything like the rest, I expect to see him editing with that account again before long!) I've started the GA review, but without him editing, it will just fail. I wondered if you would be interested in making the tweaks needed for the article to pass. I would do it myself, but it would seem a conflict of interest for me to simply make the improvements and pass the article myself. If not, no worries. Harrias ^talk 10:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been away for a bit recently, and only really now started catching up with Wikipedia again: and yes, I had forgot! I'm inclined to agree with you, given Old Lanky has disappeared, and the article can certainly be improved, I think failing it is the only sensible option. Harrias ^talk 12:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred Jeacocke

KTC (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim Kilburn

Time doesn't permit me to get formally involved in the GA review process, for which I wish you good luck, but one thought occurs to me: from the bibliography, he clearly also wrote about rugby (was he perhaps the Yorkshire Post rugby correspondent as well as the cricket correspondent?), and so the article ought to have something about that. JH (talk page) 09:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someone on the rugby union project might be able to help? JH (talk page) 10:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Jim Umbricht to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Jim Umbricht, which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• This user helped promote Mike Garcia (AL pitcher) to good article status.
  On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Mike Garcia (AL pitcher), which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob Feller

Hey. Was wondering if you'd be able to take a quick look over the article. I did an overhaul post-GA and am looking to send it through FAC in the next week or so, so if you're able to note any comments that would be great. If you'd prefer to wait for the FAC then that's fine too. Wizardman 03:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have one short follow-up mostly unrelated to the PR. I'm trying to figure out whether it's worth making a section on his feud with Jackie Robinson. His biography goes into good detail on it, and the sourcing is there, but I'm unsure if it's undue weight; either I should make a section or ignore it entirely. (either way, the current glossing-over is poor). Since you've read the article I wondered if you had an opinion on which way to go. (FWIW, FA Jackie Robinson doesn't even mention Feller, but the feud was more on the Feller side anyway) Wizardman 20:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It was one of those things that was fairly big in the 40s and 50s since it was right in the middle of baseball's integration, so his feud was interpreted as racial. No one really cares about it now (no mention of Robinson at all in any obit sources), hence why I will most likely it out as well. Wizardman 22:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Leyland

Page 614 of the ACS Who's Who of First Class Cricket (Hamlyn 1984 (mine is the Guild BCA) edition, which waqs compiled by Philip Bailey of Cricketarchive gives the entry as Morris Leyland(Known as Maurice) b. Newpark, Harrogate 20/7/00) Now Philip only deals in certainties, believe me, I know him. This is duplicated on CA. At the risk of sounding daft - Bilton is almost in the Newpark area of Harrogate so what the argument is about I don't really know. Anyhow the official POB is what's on the certificate and in law(I'm a solicitor of sorts), your first name is what you call yourself subject to ensuring, as an adult, it's on everything. A change of spelling is neither here no there and can often be the result of the registar mishearing or misspelling. Also Wisden was notorious for mangling names take KT Rammadin and Ernest Tyldesley who was known by everyone including himself by his given first name of George, or indeed the murderous Shipman, known in the press as Harold but everyone knew him as Fred (His second name) Tony Woodhouse knew Leyland and I suspect knew a lot about him although his book was the thinning out of Tony's wayward manuscript by Peter Wynne Thomas(it was 250,000 words!) when Tony was terminally ill. Some of your articles really are very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.219.98 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you anonymous stranger... The Bilton thing is cleared up, it was a straight error on my part: wrong Bilton. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

More Leyland

I'll have a look at Wisdens certainly. Do you have Alan Gibson, Growing up with Cricket, which has four or five pages on Leyland? If not I'll try to scan it in and send it to you by email. I think there's a Crusoe essay as well, but I can't find my copy of that. I've been gently tackling Dickie Dodds over the past few days: you don't happen to have Hit Hard and Enjoy It, do you? It's Dodds' autobiography of how his conversations with his God inspired his batting style. Johnlp (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I happened to spot wour conversation with Johnlp. Presumably you've already looked at Barclay's World of Cricket? There's almost certain to be something about him in A.A. Thomson's The Cricketers of My Time. I could take a look, if you like. JH (talk page) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's some directly copied out stuff from Wisdens 1926 to 1928, with their rather individual punctuation and vocabulary and all. Not hugely insightful, I suspect.

1926 Wisden, part II, page 45, chapter “Yorkshire Matches” “Leyland still further increased the big reputation he had made in the previous summer and ought, if all goes well with him, to attain the highest distinction. A notable performance on the part of the young left-hander occurred in the Middlesex match at Leeds, Leyland being called upon at a moment’s notice to open the innings with Sutcliffe, and rising to the occasion so manfully that the total reached 218 before the first wicket fell.”

page 61, Yorkshire v Middlesex report “As Holmes, owing to a delay on the railway, did not reach the ground in time, Leyland had to open the innings with Sutcliffe, and so finely did he play his part that he scored 110 out of the 218 put on for the first wicket.”

1927 Wisden, part II, page 125, chapter “Yorkshire Matches” “A gratifying advance in skill was shown by Leyland who, if his average deteriorated a few runs, made himself one of the bulwarks of the side and enjoyed the distinction of playing five separate three-figure innings.”

1928 Wisden, part II, page 90, chapter “Yorkshire Matches” “Leyland was not so dependable as could have been desired, but he batted in attractive fashion, and had for his most notable success a score of 204 not out against Middlesex at Sheffield.”

page 631, “M.C.C. Team in India” “The M.C.C. team captained by A. E. R. Gilligan found the extreme heat very trying at times, but they went through an arduous tour without suffering defeat. It was found necessary to send for Mercer to strengthen the bowling, and when injuries incapacitated Brown and Hill, the two wicketkeepers, Dolphin proved a valuable recruit. Leyland—like Dolphin engaged as coach by the Maharajah of Patiala—played in a few matches.”

--Johnlp (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thomson has a three and a half page essay on Leyland in Cricketers of My Times (to get the title right this time), pages 127-130, published by Stanley Paul in 1967. It's a very good piece, concentrating more on his character than his technique. I was hoping that I might be able to scan the pages in, but the book is too thick to get a satisfactory result. So here are some of the most quotable bits:

1. (p127)

Your Yorkshire cricketer usually has, and admits to having, certain qualities: sturdiness, independence and a refusal to give in. Leyland had these characteristics and more; where he differed from the rest was that his fighting was done, not truculently, but with a genial smile; the harder the battle, the broader the smile and the stronger the resolution.

2. (p127)

Assuredly he was born for the big occasion and of his 80 centuries, nine were in Tests, seven of them against Australia, but, while most cricketers regard England as an extension of their counties, to Leyland it was a not unimportant part of Yorkshire. His virtues were Yorkshire virtues and more; like George Herbert Hirst, he had all Yorkshire's strength and, in his outlook, in his humour, he had something more than Yorkshire's grace.

Because so many of his grandest innings were played with his broad back against the wall, he has often been seen as the side's chief-almost official-rescuer, but his batting was by nature an attacking weapon. That volcanic eruption with Sutcliffe at Scarborough in 1932 was characteristic of his approach: 'Watch out, if you have to; hit out whenever you can and think on all the time what you're there for'.

3. p127-8

Leyland anecdotes are innumerable, but different... Leyland stories have their personal hallmark... His humour was good humour, with the point of the jest, as often as not, turned against himself... Reproved for his slowness, [in his partnership of 382 with Hutton in the 1938 Oval Test] Leyland, who had been dropped in the previous Test, replied, straight-faced: 'Well, you see, I was playing for my place'.

4. p128

His modesty, which was part ironic and part quizzical, was wholly genuine. When eyebrows were lifted at the sight of his getting out to a dolly catch off a near-wide, he apologised: 'Well now, I don't get much practice against that sort'.

His quiet modesty was the obverse side of his equally quiet confidence. 'Am I nervous? Of course I'm nervous. There you are, out in t' middle, and there's 30,000 people, all knowing what to do better than you do.'

If he privately knew himself to have the measure of O'Reilly, who was no paper tiger, he also had the respect of one master for another... Leyland was acknowledged by his contemporaries as the one English batsman who could be relied on to remove the smile from the face of the Tiger.

5. p129

After retirement he was chief coach at Headingley with his fellow-warrior, Arthur Mitchell, a sterling stomewalling character, as dour in philosophy as Leyland was genial.

6. p129

He tended to laugh at the notion of himself as a bowler... All the same, he took over 400 wickets for Yorkshire and in his last season helped to clinch his county's championship with a seven for 36 which shook Warwickshire to the core.

7. p129-30

His contribution was strong, resolute, cheerfully serene. However downhearted we might feel, we cheered up at the sight of his burly figure; his blue eyes, his powerful shoulders, his leg-of-mutton forearms and his cap tilted a little more than Admiral Lord Beatty's and a little less than Roy Kilner's.

In the rugged masculine world of Test cricket, nobody has to be liked, much less loved... But once in a while there comes a man whose integrity and humorous friendliness are perfectly balanced...

Phew! With Thomson's writing, once you start quoting it's hard to stop! There are a lot of good anecdotes that I've had to omit on grounds of length. I've used blockquote, but I see that it loses any paragraph breaks in the quoted material. Incidentally, if you can find a second-hand copy of Cricketers of My Times, I'd highly recommend buying it. JH (talk page) 20:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Here you go:

1929 Wisden, part II, page 171, chapter “Yorkshire Matches”

“The loss Yorkshire suffered in his death was particularly heavy, coming as it did at a time when the bowling of the team generally lacked much of its old excellence. Unhappily, during the early weeks of the summer, Macaulay laboured under a considerable handicap owing to an injury to the foot, and it was some time before he could give of his best. Furthermore, the County Committee had decided not to re-engage Waddington who, if doing little in 1927, had previously borne a considerable part in the Yorkshire attack. Jacques, the amateur fast bowler, did not improve sufficiently for the Committee to persevere with him. In these circumstances a heavy responsibility, even when Macaulay had fully recovered, devolved upon Robinson and Rhodes. These two men rose to the occasion in most praiseworthy fashion. Leyland now and then rendered useful help and Dennis, a young fast bowler, showed some promise, but still the Yorkshire bowling as a whole was not equal to the needs of the situation. Leyland may possibly develop as a successor to Kilner, and Dennis, if judiciously coached and able to turn to account the advice tendered him, should secure a permanent place in the side, but for the moment the Yorkshire attack is far below the average of past years.”

On the following page, there's more about how Rhodes, Robinson and Macaulay are the basis of the Yorkshire attack: "Upon these three men, it would seem, Yorkshire will largely have to depend for, as yet, Dennis and Leyland are not really consistent, and their wickets cost a good deal."

Johnlp (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Reading through the article for the first time, I noticed that there are at least three (unreferenced) anecdotes which seem to have come from Thomson's book, which I reluctantly didn't include in what I quoted here on the grounds that they would involve too much typing. So one of the earlier contributors may well have used the book as a source. Of course it's also possible that the same anecodotes appear elsewhere, though at a quick glance the wording seems to be identical (or at least very nearly so) to Thomson's. JH (talk page) 22:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's "quickly". The only other variation with the Cricinfo version is the description of his fielding towards the end, which the web version truncates: "In the outfield he covers a tremendous lot of ground, picks up cleanly and throws in perfectly, first bounce to the wicket, on any ground. He does not waste time in winding up and his throw saves time by being of a low trajectory." It's in the 1929 edition, Part I, page 271. Johnlp (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

One Kent supporter wrote that Leyland was a "leaden-footed cart-horse". That sounds as though it was probably Gerry Weigall, a great Woolley supporter, who according to Swanton described Leyland as a "cross-batted village greener", such a vivid - though unfair - phrase that I made sure it appeared in Weigall's Wikipedia article. JH (talk page) 09:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Bodyline

I see you have had a little "local difficulty" on this article which needs to be watched carefully from now on as it has acquired a resident expert crackpot in the shape of none other than Arsequiff aka Daft. All three of these "contributors" to the article are him: User:Cdomm and IPs 86.154.165.196 and 109.144.210.21. Who else could they be but he who has sole "knowledge of the sources". You were quite right to remove his inane drivel, WP:BAN notwithstanding. I notice he has, as always, thrown his Wisdens out of his pram and gone screaming to Mummy like the moron he is. Keep up the good work. --86.129.180.34 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Widmerpool

Just to let you know that the Widmerpool article is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

PR

Hi, look forward to your comments at this peer review. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sesame Street research

Here's the mail! [1] Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer review dostoyevsky

Hello,

you may be interested in giving a review of this peer review. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, do you know someone who may be interested in giving a review? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A dreadful let-down

I am a broken reed. Apart from the 1940 and the 1946 (and the 1915 and 1919 ones from earlier) I've never bothered with the wartime ones because there was remarkably little "proper" cricket and they're also usually impossibly expensive. Odd as it may seem, I actually buy them to read them! Johnlp (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC) ...oh, and that too. But surely you must have moved on to 1929 by now. Johnlp (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wake up, S!

I figured you'd get the reference. Finished addressing your GA review of Anthony Field. And yes, I forgive you for your crack about The Wiggles. Thanks, and hope all is well with the review. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass. I've been to two Wiggles concerts, and thought they were very fun and surprisingly professional. I love my kids' reaction, and how much joy they get out of the guys' efforts. Seeing Murray Cook play, a truly great guitarist, was such a treat. And I must admit that I have such a crush on Anthony. I guess it's a Mommy-thing. ;) I appreciate your generosity, and for pushing past your discomfort. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Flashman Papers

Many thanks for your recent comments atPR for The Flashman Papers. The article is now at FLC, should you wish to view or comment further. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Smiley and the TLS

I shall be delighted. I have to go to the British Library to access the TLS archive, but I'm there fairly often and will put Smiley on my to-do list. More anon. Tim riley (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've jotted down one or two things from the TLS which you can find at User:Tim riley/sandbox2. Please copy and paste if there's anything you find useful there. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Lbw thoughts

Sorry.. I'm sort of here but not here at the moment. I'm mostly working on lists when I'm about, because it's a pretty mindless task that just occupies me without me having to put much effort in, which is more or less where my head has been lately. Life is getting pretty hectic, and I'm possibly going to have stop, or at least severely cut down my involvement. Anyway, I don't think there is any real value in adding a list to the article: for Handled the ball, it makes sense to list the victims, but for something like lbw it's just a list of guys who have played a lot of cricket, which in my opinion at least, renders it meaningless. I haven't had a look over the article in a while, but last I remember it looked pretty good. If I have some time (and I'll be honest, I doubt I will) I'll cast my eye over it and try and input at the PR or FAC. Are you coming down to Taunton at the end of May to see Yorkshire declare, allowing Somerset to smash their way to victory? (I'm just basing this on the last few matches I remember...) Harrias ^talk 22:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

LBW request

I'll try to review it within a week, but I'm slammed at the moment by outstanding/planned reviews and upcoming college midterms. Nothing is coming that easily for me, here or in real life. As for the article, I'm sure it would do well at FAC; experienced editors are typically the ones who have the "clout" to get larger-subject articles through the process, and you do a good job of keeping article from being too technical in general. If you haven't had comprehensiveness or jargon issues with how you've done articles so far (some of which have been large-scale bios that required explanations), I doubt this topic would cause any extra problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I keep trying to look over the lbw page for you, but unfortunately, all I can think whenever I look at it is "why on Earth did he shoulder arms to that??" Still, I'll keep trying. Harrias ^talk 21:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

PR request

If you have a few moments, could you give George Lansbury a quick once-over? Political biographies are not in my general comfort zone and I'd value a wide range of comments before taking it further. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Ultimate Editor Award
		For taking Maurice Leyland to GA status. Expect more FAs from you :) —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)