Talk:Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is pretty good, though I do have a few concerns:

"In the 1920s, every county had an amateur captain (when Leicestershire appointed Ewart Astill as their captain for the 1935 season he became the first professional appointed to regularly captain any county since the nineteenth century)" The parenthesis stuff feels odd added in there. Maybe reword and de-parenthesis it, or possibly remove it. Breaks up the flow as is.

Moved to aftermath section where it (hopefully) fits a little better. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting entirely why a profession would be bad because he makes his living playing cricket. Wouldn't someone who makes his living through cricket be better as a captain? I could just be overthinking things on this point though and be dead wrong.

As JHall1 says below, it was entirely an English upper class thing. For amateur, read upper class and for professional read working class! I've tried to explain and reference this in the article. If it doesn't work, I'll take it out again. I've also relinked "amateur" but tried to make it more specific in the article it links to. But I thought a brief explanation here would be beneficial. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A man called S.E. Grimshaw carried out a poll of the 7,000 Yorkshire members. The results were that 2,264 people were in favour of an amateur captain, while 444 were in favour of a professional." Instead of "a man called" maybe note his profession. also, what was the rationale for it not adding up to 7,000? I presume it was because people refused to answer, though noting it might be nice.

Called him a Yorkshire member, that's all I know about him. Not sure about the 7,000. Doesn't seem to relate to the poll at all. Comes from the ref I give, but I believe it was the case that not all members were consulted, just a selection. Took out the 7,000 and left the result of the poll. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the article on hold and pass when the issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your second point, the English class system at the time made the idea of a professional captain almost unthinkable to the sort of people who were on the committees of the various counties. They thought that a professional captain would not be sufficiently respected by his colleagues and would be unable to impose the necessary discipline. Until a recent revision the first appearance of the word "amateur" in the article was linked to History of English amateur cricket, which gave some background on the class system as it affected English cricket, but I see that someone has removed the link as "unnecessary". Perhaps it shoould be restored. Your first point is related, in that the parenthesised text was intended to highlight how radical appointing a professional captain would have been at this time, and to provide a relevant citation. JH (talk page) 09:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Forgot that people won't know about the whole amateur-professional thing. Replaced link and made it more specific. Moved the Astill bit to the end. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the amateur/professional gap makes a lot more sense now, thanks. I see why they wanted amateurs. The other points are fixed up very well also, so I am passing this article as a result. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]