User talk:Sarastro1/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Maurice Fernandes

Given your work on George Headley and Victor Pascall, I wonder if any of your sources have any information on Maurice Fernandes, the captain of West Indies during their first Test victory? I've got all I can from the internet and Altham and Swanton, which is little more than CricketArchive and his obituaries. He doesn't look the most exciting of individuals, but I figure with a little bit more (or even not much more) he can probably sit as a weak GA.

I found it amusing that while we're having an "Indian summer", Somerset's match was rained off yesterday: it appears they must be having an "English summer"! Harrias ^talk 15:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of interest down here: but generally I'd agree. If it was any county other than Somerset, I wouldn't be bothered at all. The English counties suffer in tournaments like these because we have so many counties. With the talent, particularly international talent, being so spread out in comparison to the Australian and South African sides, which can have two or three big international players each. But hey, I wouldn't want them to merge the counties, so I'm not complaining. Thanks for that on Fernandes, I'll work some of it into the article. Harrias ^talk 17:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and other than the images on Cricinfo, is there a reference for him being white? The images (and his name) seem to show a hispanic ethinicity, but I haven't seen anything written to back either up (although he clearly isn't black, I was under the impression we couldn't reference images?) Harrias ^talk 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It might just be my imagination, but if you look at the two squad images, here and here, I think there is some hint of it. Better images would be nice! Although, with no sources, it would be irrelevant for anything other than personal interest. I guess being South American, it is to be expected. Harrias ^talk 17:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

1933 FA Cup Final

Sorry for the delay, should all be sorted now, and thanks for the review. In hindsight maybe I shouldn't have submitted something to GAN while in the middle of buying a house... Oldelpaso (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Crawford snippet

Hello. Via our National Lib. of Aus. newspapers online project I've come across an article written by HL Collins which may include a sentence or two for you. Published at the end of 1937 it can be found here: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/37916616 RossRSmith (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"there's a bit from Swanton and, indirectly, from Cardus (any idea where he wrote that?)" Swanton was the editor of Barclay's World of Cricket, and didn't himself write the great majority of its content, instead commissioning writers to write pieces on their speciality, or in many cases reusing pieces originally written for other publications. I suggest that in the Bibliography section the entry shouuld make clear that Swanton was the editor rather than the writer. The profile on Crawford, at page 167, is attributed to Cardus, but doesn't say where or when it was originally published. In turn Cardus quotes a tribute to Crawford by HS Altham, which I'll try to work in if it isn't there already.

I should be able to get something from David Lemmon's Surrey history for you. Other possible sources that I can check are Arlott on Cricket, Ronald Mason's biography of Jack Hobbs, and a couple of books that I have by AA Thomson. I may not have time till Saturday or Sunday. I imagine that you will already have checked Crawford's Wisden obit and CoY articles, which should both be available at Cricinfo. JH (talk page) 09:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me check the Barclay's World of Cricket citations. They have very different page numbers, so can't all be from the Cardus profile of Crawford. JH (talk page) 17:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've checked BWoC and updated the citations. I had a bit of a problem, as the page numbers cited in the article are from the 3rd edition and I have the 2nd edition, where the pagination is different. The p167 citations are definitely from Cardus's profile of Crawford. The p598 one is from the article on Repton School, for which an author isn't credited. I think that the p519 citation refers to an article by Gerald Brodribb entitled "School Records", but the quotation didn't actually quite match Brodribb's exact words, so I could have been wrong about that. I've altered the words to match what Brodribb said in the 2nd edition and hope that they were retained for the 3rd. It might be worth your asking on the WP discussion page, as I'm sure someone will have the 3rd edition. Alternative I could change the Bibliography entry and citation page numbers to refer to the 2nd edition. JH (talk page) 19:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, will do. JH (talk page) 19:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I'm not too familiar with using the citation template, tending to think that it's more trouble then it's worth, so I'll just insert the "raw" information and leave putting it into the template to you. JH (talk page) 18:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Victor Pascall

The DYK project (nominate) 00:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach..

After doing a little bit of work on it, I've sent Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009 back to FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009/archive2. Wish me luck! Harrias ^talk 15:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe Ledley GA

Sorry about taking so long to reply to your message and thanks for doing the review. I will be looking to work on the article over the next few days and I am optimistic that I will have the majority of issues fixed by then. I agree with your assessement but I think I will be able to improve the article relatively quickly. Thank you. Adam4267 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Please don't use sub-headings"

Why? It's making it really difficult for me to navigate around all that text. It's ridiculous. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but it becomes hard to navigate through the abundance of text. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean the content made you realise? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright I was only asking, jeez. I didn't know that subheadings on the FAC review creating another FAC nomination title on the FAC page. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Percy LeSueur

Hi Sarastro1, thanks for your review. I was wondering in terms of the prose issues - is it something that could be dealt with in FAC or is that bad that it's best withdrawn? In previous FACs, prose hasn't been such a weak spot for me so I'm concerned whether you feel that the article is underprepared. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 22:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Mold

Hi Sarastro. Here's a very long mail for you. I noticed on CRIC that you've worked on Mold's article and I wondered if you would be interested in extracting any of the following which is a very well written piece in a 2005 ACS journal by Don Ambrose, a highly regarded writer who has contributed a lot of biographical content to CricketArchive. For citation purposes, you would need in the bibliography:

• Ambrose, Don (2005). Arthur Webb Mold. Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

The article covers four pages from 29 to 32.

The ACS article also has two photos: one a late action still which is almost certainly from the film on YouTube; the other is a portrait of Mold in his prime, standing erect and holding the ball towards the camera. I'm not brilliant at uploading photos and you never can tell if they are public domain or otherwise allowable but the ACS do not formally acknowledge their use so I suspect they are PD. If you'd like me to have a go at uploading them, I will.

That's it. I hope you might find something useful in all this. All the best. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

ACS was based in Nottingham at that time but moved to Cardiff a couple of years later and is still there. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC) - five years ago actually.

No specific date, I'm afraid. The journal is published quarterly by season and this was the "Summer 2005" edition so I guess it would have been issued May/June. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Troll

Hi Sarastro. Per numerous other pages, you have been visited by the Daft/Tillman/KestevenBullet troll. You shouldn't have to put up with this so I've reverted your talk page. Admins spotted his actions immediately and blocked both his new accounts so we just have to tidy up now.

Thanks for your message yesterday, by the way, and I hope that extract is useful. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowle West

Thanks for your helpful comments in the FAC. Much appreciated. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Duff Cooley GA

Finished all comments. As a side note William Hearn (umpire) might be of interest to you as a DYK. Albacore (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tribal Hidage

I need another week! Is that OK? Hel-hama (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Done! Feel free to see what I've done. I've reserved a library book you recommended, so I'll check out how useful it is when I get it and add more to the article if needed. Otherwise, I've finished. I couldn't obtain Davies and Vierck, as I don't live in Swansea or Germany and the last time I spent any money on something written in 1974, it was the Beano, in 1974. Hel-hama (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Notes and last points all responded to. Thanks for these. Hel-hama (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and all your help. I'll only take it further it I gat the right books, as you suggest. I'm probably going to look at the Devil's Dyke, Cambridgeshire article now, for a slight change in direction. Hel-hama (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Percy LeSueur, again

You had reviewed the article a few weeks ago. I made most of your suggested changes and am seeking out an independent copyeditor. I just wanted to reply to some of your comments, as it may be useful in the long run.

• Regarding the "hometown" teams, I don't know much about them. Minor amateur teams from the 1890s are very obscure, so I've hidden their names, at least for now.
• There isn't much about his early life overall, as is the case of for biography of hockey players in the earliest days. All we know regarding his position was that he played wing at first in Smiths Falls.

Thanks again for reviewing. Maxim_(talk) 23:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Having just read the article on Wilfred Rhodes, I feel inclined to give you a barnstar in recognition of a fantastic article! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Harry Lee GAN

Thanks for your review: I've responded to all of your comments (though not made any changes to the article!) As always, thanks for the copy-editting as well; slowly but surely I think my writing is improving as I look through what you change and try to avoid it in the future. Certainly the slowly part, anyway. Look forward to your further comments. Incidentally, what are your thoughts on Gillespie's appointment? Harrias ^talk 17:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Responded again at the review. Harrias ^talk 22:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review: I'm going away tomorrow, so probably won't get to this until Sunday or the early part of next week: might be sooner though, who knows. Harrias ^talk 08:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the A-class review, I'm hoping to tap into a couple of editors for the military stuff. It looks like User:AustralianRupert reckons a cricketing rubber stamp will be needed for the A-class thing itself. Harrias ^talk 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Sarastro1 for helping to promote Harry Lee (cricketer) to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Learie Constantine

As a Nelsonian and a cricket fan I just wanted to say thanks and well done for what you've done with the Learie Constantine article. When I'm back in Nelson in a couple of weeks (currently at university in Sheffield), I'll have a look through the local library newspaper archives and perhaps be able to add more about his life in the area and time in the Lancashire League. Well done again, it's a great read now and a fitting account of a great man's life. Cheers, BigDom 18:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's true, you could probably write something double the length of the current article if you included all the details of his time at Seedhill. And I'm probably just a little bit biased. Still, I'll probably end up going to the library even if it's just for my benefit and if anything comes up that should go in the article then that's a bonus. BigDom 19:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll be making some comments at the GA review which I hope will be helpful. JH (talk page) 09:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right that I normally stay clear of the "bureaucratic" stuff like formal reviews. I'd assumed that there would be other reviewers as well as myself, and that my contribution would be comparatively minor. Is it even possible for an article to achieve GA status based on just one person's review? I'm not sure when I'll have time to read through the whole thing - possibly at the weekend. Also I'm far from an expert on his life, so if you say something about him that's wrong I'm unlikely to pick it up. JH (talk page) 19:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So long as you aren't in any hurry, I'm happy to continue. JH (talk page) 20:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd hope to get it done within seven days, and definitely well within thirty. If the reviewer notices minor things like typos, is he permitted to fix them himself rather than raise them in the review? JH (talk page) 20:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I still have all of Learie's post cricket career to do. I had intended to do some more before this, but what with Christmas it slipped my mind. I'll try to take a quick look at Len Hutton in the next day or two, but I'm afraid that it will only be a very brief one. JH (talk page) 22:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, but to be fair there was no sign of a stick. :) I've replied, hopefully reassuringly. JH (talk page) 17:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, we are just about there, but see Learie's Talk page. I've now looked at the documentation for what I need to do to pass the article, and I can't say that I really understand what the parameters for the GA template on the talk page should be. Please can you advise? (I must admit that if I had realised at the time that I would not be just one of several reviewers or how time-consuming this would be, I should never have volunteered! I can't help thinking that our time would be better spent in writing new articles or expanding inadequate ones than in the GA (or FA) process.) JH (talk page) 20:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That dotting of "i"s and crossing of "t"s will have to wait for tomorrow now, as I'm tired and need to get some sleep. JH (talk page) 22:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's all been done - hopefully! In fact the GA bot added the Good Article template to the article itself before I could do so - it's quick! Having added the article to the cricket section of the Everyday Life Good Articles page, I did wonder if it ought be be added elsewhere as well, as he was much more than just a cricketer. On a similar theme, are there some other projects besides the four already there which ought to have project banners on the article's Talk page? (Are their projects for the Law? Politics? Diplomacy?) JH (talk page) 10:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy to go with just Politics added. And happy to have been of service with the review. :) JH (talk page) 22:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of Australian photographs (re: Assistance with an image)

Hi, Sarastro. In the past, I presumed that {{PD-US-1996}} meant that any Australian photograph created before 1946 would be in the US public domain. I have blundered in that aspect. The URAA ruling in {{PD-US-1996}} governs published material, not unpublished ones. As a result, I am afraid I was complicit in allowing several photographs of unknown publication status to have passed in review (thinking that they were PD in both US and Australia). My current opinion is:

Photographs taken before 1946 and first published in Australia

• In the public domain of US and Australia

Photographs taken before 1946 but never published

• In Australia's public domain, but could possibly still be copyrighted in the US until 70 years pma (known author) or 120 years from creation (unknown or corporate author).

Items are considered published if copies of the work were made available to the public by the copyright owner or authorised parties.

One might say that by making digital copies of the items available online, the archive or museum is publishing it at that moment. However, that might apply only to certain material because said institutions might have received donations of material without transfer of copyright (especially if it was scrapbook collections). Also the notion of digital distribution qualifying as publishing is not yet cemented in law.

I have heard of arguments that state 50-year-old Australian photographs are PD in the US by virtue of the free trade agreement between the US and Australia. Frankly, I have not seen any part of the FTA that states this. What was achieved in the FTA was the extension of copyright term in Australia from 50 to 70 years (thus US works would be protected in Australia with a tenure similar to what they were in the US itself, and Australian works in the US would also enjoy the same term of protection as they would back home) and nothing else (the country's laws still remain mostly the same, except for the extension of terms).[1][2] If anyone can point out where the FTA specifically force the US to recognize that Australian photographs are PD in the US because of Australian law, that would help a lot of image reviews here and my mind as well.

With regards to File:Learie Constantine.jpg, it would be best to find out if that image was first published in Australia. These books might be of help. Per above, any pre-1946 picture of Constantine first published in an Australian book would be PD in both US and Australia. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Rebel Flesh

I have responded to your comments at Talk:The Rebel Flesh/GA1. Thanks for reviewing! Glimmer721 ^talk 17:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Martindale

Thank you for your kind remarks: he's been on my to-do list for a while since I noticed how poor the article was a month or so back. I don't have either of the books you mentioned, so please feel free to add whatever you can: I'm in such a busy work period that my appearances here are pretty unpredictable. Johnlp (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably gone about as far as my limited sources (and resources) will take me. Please feel free to add anecdote, detail or whatever you want! Johnlp (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's excellent. Many thanks. Johnlp (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Like a bad smell...

... I keep hovering around! Wondered if you had any sources which state when first-class cricket was defined, and that first-class status afforded to matches before then was enacted retroactively, and a little haphazardly! Working on the Lyttelton clan in various parts of user space at the moment, and think it is relevant to discuss, particularly for Charles. But though the article on first-class cricket mentions it, it doesn't really reference much! Harrias ^talk 22:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Fernandes review too by the way! Harrias ^talk 22:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Crawford

It's clear that Crawford's exceptional talent was quickly recognised. Though he only had, I think, 17 f-c matches behind him over two seasons when picked for South Africa, he had clearly impressed everyone. Also school cricket was probably given much more weight then than it is today. It's astonishing how much coverage HS Altham gives it in the 1st volume of "A History of Cricket". I can't provide anything specific, but the article on Surrey for the 1906 Wisden might have something, if you can manage to access it.

As to Crawford's return to Surrey, David Lemmon's history just says that "his differences with Surrey had been settled". It seems clear to me that the death of Lord Alverstoke in (IIRC) 1915 must have been a major factor, but I can't provide a citation to support that opinion. The trouble is that everyone was so damned discreet about such things back then. :) Again, the Wisden article on Surrey for the relevant season might have something, though I doubt it. JH (talk page) 22:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have Wisden for 1906 (I get one or two a year going backwards plus the new one, and got the 1913 edition earlier this year, so I'm getting there, but it'll take a few more years!). The 1920 Wisden report on Surrey in 1919 merely remarks on Crawford's reappearance "after an absence of nine years", and gets a bit rapturous about his partnership with Hobbs that won the Kent match at the Oval and the innings against the Australian Forces team. Thanks for the extras on Martindale: your library looks to be a lot more extensive than mine. Johnlp (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Two other thoughts. The Surrey committee minutes might have something. If they survive and if you ask nicely, the Surrey archivist might be willing to photocopy the relevant page for you or else let you visit the library at The Oval to browse through the paperwork yourself. Or would that count as OR? I believe that at the time of the original dispute the committee minuted that he should never be asked to play for Surrey again (and if you need it I can provide a citation), so I think that implies that they must have had a change of heart post-war, even if Crawford did apologise. JH (talk page) 18:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Aggers at WP:FAC

Hello Sarasro1, thanks for your help and comments at the recent FAC for Jonathan Agnew. Unfortunately it was closed earlier today as it received no support within three weeks. As such, we'll need to wait a while before renominating the article, some time in the new year. This is just a quick note to thank you for your help up to this point, have a good seasonal period, and look forward to working with you in 2012. Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hutton PR

Yes, I'd be glad to. Your cricket articles are quite illuminating and enjoyable. Finetooth (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added some comments on the lead, let me know if/when you'd like me to continue. Cheers, and happy new year! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Chapman

I just happen to have the 1923 Wisden on my desk at present (courtesy of having diverted temporarily off George Francis on to Henry Murray-Anderdon, the Cardinal Richelieu of Somerset cricket). Here's some Cambridge blurb (Part II, page 374, Chapter "The Universities—Cambridge"):

A. P. F. Chapman, the most brilliant of all our young amateur batsmen, was disappointing in most of the trial games, but he found his best form in a splendid 102 not out against Oxford, and that atoned for any previous short-comings. Like Hubert Ashton he was superb in the field. A cover point being wanted he stepped into the position and did wonders, getting down to the ball with lightning quickness and stopping everything that could be stopped.

There isn't a lot in the report on the Varsity match (Part II, page 16, Chapter "M.C.C. Matches"):

The finest cricket of the match was seen on the second morning, Hubert Ashton and Chapman, by superb play, taking the score to 403 [from 231] and being still together when, at ten minutes past one, rain and a wretched light caused the players to leave the field... Chapman, who had been very disappointing in the trial matches, happily found his best form on the all-important occasion. His 102 not out—a delightful innings to watch—included eleven 4's.

Here's the report on the Lord's G v P match (Part II, page 404, Chapter "Gentlemen v. Players Matches")

In the morning [of the second day] there was some good defensive batting by Fiddian-Green and Ashton, but the cream of the cricket came during a wonderful partnership by Carr and Chapman. They became partners before lunch with the score at 86, and put on 150 runs together in an hour and three-quarters. Carr was out at last to a catch in the long field... Chapman found another first-rate partner in Mann, who helped to add 147 in less than two hours and might have gone on indefinitely if an unfortunate misunderstanding had not caused him to be run out. Bowled at last playing forward, Chapman had the extreme satisfaction of following up his hundred in the University match with a great score of 160, equalling a record that had belonged exclusively to R.E. Foster. There was only one mistake in his innings, which for brilliancy on the off side could scarcely have been surpassed. He hit a 6 and fourteen 4's.

Hope this helps. I'll look at other Wisdens across the coming week, but I have a heavy work schedule in the next few days, so may not get to it instantly. Happy new year! Johnlp (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim Kilburn

Nice work! I'm glad you've written this article, as Kiburn has been on my "to do" list for several years. I've been conscious for some time that, because we naturally tend to concentrate on the players, some significant cricket writers have been overlooked. Looking at the notes I put together in preparation for one day writing his article, I found a reference to an article that might be of use to you: [3]. I also found a list of his books that I had compiled from Amazon, and which I'll add to the article. A couple of them are on rugby union rather than cricket, so though best known for cricket he clearly wrote on rugby as well. JH (talk page) 17:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hadji Ali

Sarastro - Thank you kindly for your comments and taking the time to look in depth. I'm going to work on it in dribs and drabs and then place my "dones" or responses all at once, but I am working on it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to all you comments at the FAC as of now. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied to your most recent replies!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Aha! I have responded to your last at the FAC and fixed the last issue noted. Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

More Chapman from Wisden

Here's some stuff from 1921 Wisden on the 1920 season.

In the Cambridge section:

Chapman, a left-hander of limitless possibilities, is regarded by many good judges as an England batsman of the future. His fine form for Cambridge was abundantly confirmed at the end of the season when he took part in the Scarborough Festival.<ref>{{Cite book | title = [[Wisden Cricketers' Almanack]] | edition = 1921 | publisher = [[Wisden]] | chapter = The Universities—Cambridge| page = 324}}</ref>

Report on Cambridge University v Essex, first first-class match of the season in which Chapman made 118 and 41:

Quite the feature of the match was the success of Chapman, who had failed in the Trial game, and only played as a substitute for Brooke-Taylor. Happily he did himself ull justice, and made pracxtically sure of his Blue. At the wickets for two hours and fifty minutes, he scored his 118 without giving a chance. <ref>{{Cite book | title = [[Wisden Cricketers' Almanack]] | edition = 1921 | publisher = [[Wisden]] | chapter = The Universities—Cambridge| page = 329}}</ref>

Report on Gents v Players at Lord's... not one of the more distinguished matches.

Except Chapman, the batsmen seemed to find [Woolley] unplayable... One of the best features of a rather disappointing match was the magnificent outfielding of Chapman.<ref>{{Cite book | title = [[Wisden Cricketers' Almanack]] | edition = 1921 | publisher = [[Wisden]] | chapter = Gentlemen v. Players Matches| pages = 340–341}}</ref>

Report on Gents v Players at Scarborough...

In making such a good fight [the Gentlemen] were mainly indebted to Chapman, who gave further evidence that he is the best batamong the younger amateurs. Apart from a few uncertain strokes in the slips his 101 was a splendid innings.<ref>{{Cite book | title = [[Wisden Cricketers' Almanack]] | edition = 1921 | publisher = [[Wisden]] | chapter = Gentlemen v. Players Matches| pages = 341–342}}</ref>

Thank you

That's very kind of you. Johnlp (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hirst

There is a book by Stephen Chalke that has some new things on Hirst in 1906 - it is not very expensive as far as I know - it is a softback. TMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.61.242 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know if you are watching this page, but I don't suppose you have a) read it or b) have an isbn for it? There was a cricinfo article by Chalke a few years ago and I wonder if the two are connected? Just wondered what was new, although I'd like a look anyway. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just spotted this. Stephen Chalke has his own Wiki article, and amongst his books listed there is "A Summer of Plenty - George Herbert Hirst in the Summer of 1906 (2006)". JH (talk page) 22:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, in which case it was linked to the article and I suspect there is nothing that urgently should go in Hirst's article, although I would still like to have a look. Ah, glory days... Try doing that in 14 matches... --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Quatermass Xperiment Peer Review

Hi Sarastro,

Thanks very much for taking the time to write a peer review for The Quatermass Xperiment. At first glance your comments seem very useful and constructive. Unfortunately right at this moment I am very busy in real life so it will be a few days before I get to examine the points you make in detail and amend/comment as appropriate. However, I just wanted to drop you a quick line to convey my appreciation for having a look at the article and I hope once I have had the time to work on the issues you raise, you might be able to offer some further feedback.

Thanks again - Joe King (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Just to say, I've made a number of changes based on some of the suggestions you have made in your review. If you have the time to cast your eye over the article again and offer some comments, they would be gratefully received. Thanks - Joe King (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the detailed peer review of Elias Abraham Rosenberg, I think your suggestions will help a lot. I'll probably ask you to take another look after I finish with the changes (got a few things going on now). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Storm in a Teacup (film)/archive1

So which Class does Storm in a Teacup (film) deserve: B, C, or Start? --George Ho (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Aggers

Hey Sarastro1, unfortunately you've exceeded the FAC limit on comments against Jonathan Agnew and as such, I'll be blocking you indefinitely for disrupting our meagre attempt to take over the Wiki-cricki-verse. Actually, thanks for your generous comment and your notes, me and the D man will do our best to get these sorted out in the next 24 hours, and on behalf of him and me, thanks for your input. We never expected to get it right, not even second time; your comments are much appreciated and we'll crack on ASAP. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I come from a very "minor county" so no issues here re:War of the Roses! I'll work on them one at a time, hopefully being reasonable each time! If not, just smack me down and I'll leave Dweller to pick up the pieces! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This Middlesex man says thanks very much for helping us improve the article - over some period of time, not just the FAC. To help keep the page tidy, would you mind if we rolled up your comments into a show/hide thingy, leaving just your support comment on view by default? --Dweller (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, I must be more out of touch with FAC than I thought. No, leave it alone unless we can do that - I don't want it to appear that we're being less than transparent about comments we have or have not satisfied. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Nah, Dweller, they don't "do that thing" at FAC, they prefer interminably long discussions which make it virtually impossible for normal people to see...! Sarastro1, please leave your comments per the convention and we'll just assume (unless you argue!) that we've worked out your issues! Thanks again for your input! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahalya FAC

Hi. Ahalya recently failed the FAC. Please help improve the article by providing your suggestions and comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ahalya/archive2. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thurman Tucker

Hey, thanks for the peer review. I've finally gotten around to addressing most of your concerns, and the article's certainly better now. I'll probably bring this up for FAC before month's end, if you can double-check the article before then and note any further issues that would be great, if not that's fine as well, since it looks like you have a backlog of articles you're reviewing. I just ask since I'm trying to pre-emptively address concerns before FAC given the rather big backlog there lately. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bal des Ardents

For some reason I forgot to watch the page or something and only now noticed your review. Thanks a lot, it's most helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Jabari Parker/archive1

Did you want to reply or make further comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jabari Parker/archive1?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Elias Abraham Rosenberg

Hi again, thanks for your help on the Elias Abraham Rosenberg peer review. I think I took care of all the points from your thorough peer review. I got some help looking for sources and was able to add a bit to the article. If you have time/interest, feel free to check over the article again and/or weigh in again at the peer review. Thanks! (totally not urgent, take your time) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Line drawings of cricketers

Thank you: yes, I think you're right that photographs are better wherever possible. My only qualms with the ones you found in the Sydney Mail (apart from the fact that with my limited access to software I find them difficult to download) is that the repro in the newspaper is so bad. I liked the ALT-caption you put on the Abe Waddington one: sums it up, I think! Not sure even his Mum would have recognised him from that picture. Johnlp (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for commenting on Rihanna's Secret Body Spray Tour, I've only just seen it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hutton

I have posted more Hutton comments to the article's talk page, and hope to finish by the end of the week. I hope they help. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You! December 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	With great appreciation, I award you this barnstar for completing Good Article reviews for the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive Cheers,AstroCog (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Manchester United PR

Just want to say cheers for your feedback on the peer review. Much appreciated! -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work!

Not that I should be surprised anymore! I've started to have a look through the Len Hutton article: there are a few nitpicks here and there, but it's a fine piece of work. I'll try and put something on the review page when I've got a bit more time, though I'd support it even as it is. I'm starting to work on what might turn out to be a pretty sizeable article (or collection of articles) at the moment in my sandbox: wish me luck. I'm not used to having quite so much information to work from: I'm finding it difficult knowing which bits to cut out and which to leave! I've only got to the end of the "Learning the game" section so far, and already it seems quite long. I'm contemplating a YellowMonkey style Ian Botham in the 1981 Ashes series article, depending on how long things get, and his obvious relevance in that series. We'll see - it may be a few months yet before too much happens... Harrias ^talk 21:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, despite his obvious achievements for Somerset and England, I've never been a huge fan. A lot of the stuff he says as a commentator, or analyst, or whatever he is meant to be irritates me, and I'm not a huge fan of arrogance, so go figure! I agree on the "independence" issue, I'm trawling through a fair bit of "worshipful" text! It might interest you to know (or you may already know) that his father was apparently (I'm not sure quite how reliable this is: it's only in one text) dismayed when Botham was born because he was early, and was born outside of his father's beloved Yorkshire, which at the time obviously meant that he would never be able to play for Yorkshire. It all seems a little far-fetched though, and certainly not something I'm likely to be putting anywhere in the article! Harrias ^talk 23:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that on the Hutton page, you removed the succession boxes: I'm having similar concerns, although with the navigation boxes instead. Botham has... well... a colony of them at the bottom of his page. I've tried to collect a number of them together and hide them under an overall heading, but what's your opinion on them? (User:Harrias/sandbox4 shows how I currently have them hidden.) Personally, I'd happily get rid of the whole lot of them, but on the other hand, when I'm browsing topics I don't know too much about, I quite like these boxes. The problem is that Botham has so many of them that I think they just become confusing! Any thoughts? Harrias ^talk 21:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hutton FAC

I've been staying away from FAC and other mixed martial arts in favor of bike riding and intermediate Sudoku. I made a brief and likely ill-advised appearance today to say something about course descriptions in river articles, but otherwise I've been absent. Since I know so little about cricket, mum seems best. Best of luck with the process. I hope you succeed. Finetooth (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Percy Chapman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Donnelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Congrats...

... on the fine article that is Len Hutton. Johnlp (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)