User talk:Sarastro1/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Handled the ball

That sounds really useful; would you be able to scan the pages in and email them to me? I'm pretty sure email is turned on in my preferences, and I seem to recall that you emailed me something before? It sounds a pretty useful book, so I might look it up, especially as I was considering moving onto some of the other methods of dismissal after – though lbw is something that scared me off somewhat, so feel free to work on that yourself! Harrias talk 12:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My email address hasn't changed in about fifteen years, so you should be fine. My wife is threatening to start a one in, one out policy on cricket books: not sure how many more I can justify getting at the moment! I can see what you mean about lbw: considering that you are targetting article on Hobbs and Ambrose, and I'm working on Botham, it probably isn't all that bad. Harrias talk 12:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I've more or less completed the expansion of Handled the ball for the moment, any chance you could have a look through and let me know what you think? Harrias talk 12:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you were right with the missing words! I've nominated it for GAN, but I want to give it a bit of a copy-edit at some stage: parts of it were slightly tired writing I think. I'll probably have a look at some of the others at some point, but I want to get some more done on Botham, and I've strayed away from hockey to do a little bit on Wilbur Smith too! Harrias talk 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

LBW

I'll take a look, but it will have to wait until tomorrow now. JH (talk page) 22:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Correcting one typo that I saw, but I'll have a proper read-through tomorrow if I have time. Johnlp (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(a) Long before URDS, in the 2002 ICC Champions trophy, the umpire could refer to the third umpire if he had doubts about an lbw. I don't remember remember whether it was used in any other tests/ODIs.

I found a ref, but not too sure if it's worth putting in. The article already says that there were trials. Do we need to mention this one in 2002? Open to suggestions. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
IMO we should say when it was first used, and especially as it was tried at the international level itself. Just like we say about the experimental amendments to 1935 and 1970 laws before they were written into the Laws. From a quick check, players were allowed to refer to the 3rd umpire in the 2006 Champions Trophy. Tintin 02:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(b) Looking at http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152418.html, an important change is that it reversed the 1935 amendment. Perhaps it is worth a mention. But in the 1980 code "or on the off side of the Striker's wicket" is back.

This is covered: next sentence after this ref: "This meant that any batsman playing a shot could not be out if the ball pitched outside odd stump, in contrast to the 1935 law". Then the 1980 return to 1935 conditions first took place in 1972, which is also covered. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(c) Perhaps a word on how the law is used for reverse sweeps and switch hits.

Not sure I can find a source which explicitly links this to the law. There is a note which links off/leg side to the batting stance, but does not mention any shots. Making this link without a source is borderline WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, I think. If anyone has an explicit source, I can add it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.lords.org/latest-news/news-archive/mcc-give-switch-hit-all-clear,1077,NS.html is the most straightforward one that I can find. Tintin 02:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(d) "However, there was a clause in the 1744 laws which gave umpires the power to take action if the batsman was "standing unfair to strike" - From a quick check it seems to refer to fielders, not batsmen - "They are sole judges of all hindrances, crossing ye Players in running, and standing unfair to strike, and in any case of hindrances may order a Notch to be scored." Please check this again. Tintin 02:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The source I use explicitly links lbw to this clause, and we have to follow the sources unless a better source contradicts it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll send a mail to BlackJack on whether it is Brodribb's own interpretation or a universally accepted one. If it does refer to lbw, there would be some batsmen given out that way and BJ would know. Tintin 02:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It's good to get Tintin's views because he's a real expert on the laws, far more so than I am. I'm happy to leave him to comment on the history of the LBW law and confine myself to a couple of remarks about the intro and the definition sections. It all reads pretty well, I reckon, but then I rather expect that of your work – you set yourself a very high standard!
I think the intro is a bit too detailed (and a bit daunting for non-cricket people), and probably needs to have just the simple definition, an explanation of why such a law is needed, and then a sentence or so to say that what sounds like a very simple law actually is both complex (because of later modifications to the simple rule) and controversial (because of the element of subjectivity in its adjudication). You could quote Brodribb in the intro: "No dismissal has produced so much argument as L.B.W."
Then you come to the detailed definition, and here I think you might usefully use bulletpoints to clarify the non-straightforward criteria that are now in the laws: the occasions where pitching off-line and hitting the batsman out-of-line can now produce a dismissal, and the converse side where no dismissal will result.
BTW is the Brodribb reference correct at 1995? Maybe that's the edition you have: mine is 1952, so doesn't have modern changes to the laws or modern examples of incidents connected to them. Johnlp (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, trimmed back the lead and took out all the technical stuff. Also added the Brodribb quote. Re the bullets, I'm not too sure about bullets here. I'm not too sure the MOS would approve and I have vague hopes of GA/FA in future. And personally, I don't like 'em! But happy to be persuaded otherwise. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're probably right about bullets, though they do help in lists, which this sort-of is (List of circs in which you can be out LBW, followed by list of circs in which you can't). But maybe it was that I stuttered a bit over the "However" in the first paragraph and the footnotes, and also the bit about appealing and no-balls seemed in a strange order. It could be just a case of re-paragraphing and trying to bring the explanation provided by the footnotes into the text (which would I think help the non-cricket readers). Johnlp (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a proper look at the article yet, but for the "Development of the law" section, you may find "Dates in Cricket History" from the 1978 Wisden useful. (Versions of the article appeared in a number of other Wisden editions over the years, but this is the one that's available online.) See in particular the "EVOLUTION OF THE LAWS OF CRICKET" section, which devotes a subsection to lbw. JH (talk page) 21:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look now, but so far I haven't got beyond the lead, because IMO it needs a lot of work. I've made a few improvements to the wording, but have the following more substantive points:

  • "Following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire will rule a batsman out lbw if the ball would have struck the wicket but was intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat." Suggest: "Following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire will rule a batsman out lbw if the ball would have struck the wicket but was intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat or his hand holding the bat."
  • "However, the laws of cricket only allow a batsman to be given out leg before wicket in a certain set of conditions, which take account of the side of the pitch on which the ball was bowled, and where the batsman is struck in relation to the wickets." The second part of the sentence seems likely to confuse, and this much detail isn't really needed in the lead. How about moving the sentence to the start of the next para and merging it with the following sentence to give: "However, the laws of cricket only allow a batsman to be given out leg before wicket in a certain set of conditions; as a result the leg before wicket law is often described as the most complicated law in cricket, and the one which the general public find the most difficult to understand."
  • "The law arose when prominent batsmen..." I don't think you need "prominent".
  • "The law arose when prominent batsmen began to use their pads to prevent the ball hitting their wicket." I think the law actually predates the use of pads. The law dates from 1774, whereas (apart from one early experimenter) I think pads only came in during the first half of the 19th century.

JH (talk page) 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

One other thought: the claim at the very end of the lead that the use of technology has led to an increase in lbw dismissals needs a citation to support it. There are probably a few other places in the lead where a citation would be a good idea. JH (talk page) 09:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A citation is not needed in the lead as long as one is provided in the main body, which is the case here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've copied this over to the lbw talk page, where it may be more useful! I'll leave all this here for now, but will move any more replies over to that section. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This and that

A sterling effort this one. Aaroncrick TALK 10:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Remains to be seen. It's like starting over again. Oh lawdy, why'd you bother - must be a new guy? Thanks, though, I had no idea. Aaroncrick TALK 21:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, mate, it's still 15 hours away; it should get quick failed. Don't waste your time looking at it considering you have bigger fish to fry. You've taken over from YellowMonkey as our most prolific writer. Astounding knowledge and prose. Any chance of you divulging what you do for a living? If too invasive just ignore - no problem. Aaroncrick TALK 07:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack Hobbs

Glad to see that you are working on this article, which could certainly do with expansion and improvement. I'm sorry that you've deleted this paragraph, though: Hobbs acquired his love of cricket from his father and said he "took to it naturally (as) the best way to make a decent living".[1] Hobbs began by playing with friends as a young boy and recalled that "the first wicket he defended was a lamp-post in a Cambridge street".[2] It seems to me that those two quotations are illuminating. JH (talk page) 09:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Leg before wicket/GA1

I have reviewed the GA nomination for this article, and I see above why I found almost no issues with the article when reviewing it. I do have one question about global trends, but I expect I will be listing this as a GA quite easily. Regards, Resolute 23:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Elias Abraham Rosenberg

Hi Sarastro, since you peer reviewed this article for me a while back, I thought I'd let you know that it's currently at FAC. Any feedback would be appreciated if you have time/are interested. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A picture

Doing a bit of picture trawling I found this one and thought you might find it useful.

Hobbs going in to bat in his last Test innings in Australia, March 1929

Johnlp (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

... and another

Might illustrate the "poster boy" aspect of Chapman! Johnlp (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Lanny McDonald peer review

Thank you for the review! I am glad you found the article easy to read, and I find your review especially helpful given your unfamiliarity with hockey. You did express confusion about McDonald's draft and the number of teams and leagues involved. I have reworded it (in the junior section). Could you take another quick look at that paragraph and let me know if you find it easier to understand? Thanks! Resolute 02:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad that reads better for you, and I will let you know when it goes to FAC. Thanks again! Resolute 21:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

153 for the ninth wicket? Geoffrey won't be happy...

On the bright side, it isn't a new record for Kent, though it is a record for the ninth wicket by Kent against Yorkshire. I'm guessing you might stay immersed in the older history of your county for a while longer yet to hide yourself from the present day achievements? Meanwhile in Somerset, after just a few days, I'm willing to admit that things look pretty much the same: lots of promise, and not so much delivery. But if we can wrestle a victory on Day 4, then it would be a better start to the Championship than we've had in a few years.. Though, to be honest, a draw would be a better result than we've managed in a few years! Harrias talk 20:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Thomas will come back from the IPL, but he's a better one day player than Championship. We've got a few younger bowlers coming through, but it's hard to judge much from them, and harder still to rely on them. Given the money that Somerset have tended to throw around in recent years, I'm assuming we'll sign another overseas player for when Philander goes. I don't know if they're still trying to sort out a work permit for van der Merwe, or if they are looking elsewhere. The Twenty20 signings of Albie Morkel and Gayle looked like handing us the trophy in gift-wrapping until Gayle went and made up with the WICB. That said, there's plenty of time left for them to fall out again! The media has been pretty silent on what it will mean for Somerset, and Somerset haven't thought to break that silence. Without a decent overseas bowler for later in the season though, I can't see us challenging for the Championship; but dependent on how much we have Kieswetter and Buttler, we should have another good shot at the shorter formats. Harrias talk 20:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul Reinhart GA review

Good timing on the review. ;) I have tried to address your concerns, thanks again. Resolute 22:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Roberts

I took care of some of the concerns, plus I further expanded the article a bit. With the few remaining concerns, especially the racism my main archive source is currently down so I should fix and expand on it tomorrow. Thanks Secret account 04:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I took care of most of the concerns, so can you check in again when you get a chance. Thanks Secret account 18:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hardie

This is a sockpuppet of BlackJack. I recall you were caught up in it last time. Sent to Admin - just look at JM's user history(1000 or so edits worth). If you still disagree then I'd been surprised. Sorry to come back but this is a blatant sockpuppet for God's sake. Pleae note the attacks made on Golden Age of Cricket by BJ and Cricket 1940-44 by JM - they are as plain as possible. Can we please have action regarding Jim Hardie who is a blatant sockpuppet of Blackjack. Evidence - Jim Hardie has made over a hundred edits to pre=1800 cricket since 18th Feb whem user Blackjack 'retired'. No other editor has made these type of edits except Blackjack - these being tidying of references etc. He has attacked the entries of another editor using the same language, the same phrases, the same inside knowledge that was used when Blackjack was previously identified as an aggressive sockpuppet some time ago. He has used 'pretend' conversations between himself and Blackjack in a manner seen previously when he was using BartMaverick, Orrelly Man, JamesJJames sockpuppets. To summarise - Hardie has been active since Blackjack went silent - he edits the same esoteric edits using the same turns of phrase - attacks other editors in the same manner and has used similar expresions found on the Blackjack Midnight Rambler and Stumpsite website. Jim Hardie is blackjack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.74.151 (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in sockpuppet claims, and I suspect you are alienating far more people than you are convincing. And I'm not convinced. On an unrelated matter, have you any actual evidence that I could check for myself on Morris/Maurice? For example, I can't check the Yorkshire Post unfortunately, and his Wisden obit gives Maurice, despite what you said (I don't have the '68 Wisden, but according to this Wisden called him Maurice). So did the Cricketer (see here. But you do have an irritating habit of being right on some things, so if you can provide something more concrete, I would be interested! However, there is no way the article will be renamed no matter what the evidence. He is too well known as Maurice. But someone has already created a redirect, which is the best you can expect. If you have a reply (please not about BJ), post on my talk, where I am also posting this. Regards. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sarastro1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rodney Atkins/archive1.
Message added 18:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied to some of your comments in the PR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Chapman

The quote from Chapman's ex-wife after his death reads oddly: I presume "use" should be "must" but I don't have the relevant book. Johnlp (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

M Leyland

Apart from cricketarchive, there are the various ACS guides and the early Yorkshire yearbooks - it changes in that. Leyland, like several other players was 'given' a name by the newspapers and journals and it stuck AC Russell, Ernest Tyldesley. An unrelated example is 'Harold' Shipman - he was HF Shipman and known as H Frederick Shipman on his door plaque at the surgery. Once the media christian someone is stuck with it. The wisden obit does state his given name was Morris. The YP does not have an online resource - my source was the research done by the late Tony Woodhouse and John Featherstone when they compiled the ACS guides and Woodhouse's Yorkshire book. (That is not a reliable source as Tony was very ill as he came to complete it and his original submission was nearly three times the length - it was hastily trimmed and lost any sense of narrative.) I'll see what the cricketer gives in the obit though the cricketer was not going well in 1967 and entries are brief. However as cricketarchive shows, his given name was Morris. He is Maurice in Mailey's book 'and then came Bradman' which suggests it was early in his career when he mutated - that is a book not to be trusted either - Mailey was not at most of the play! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.74.151 (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My theory: too many Maurices: Tate, Turnbull and Allom. Especially after the "Two Maurices" books; maybe everyone just assumed Leyland was another one? I know he was Morris in reality, but almost everyone called (and still calls) him Maurice. A quick search of The Times revealed that he was still being called Maurice in the last ten years (I don't know if you can access the Times). Also a search of the Times Archive (although he was usually just called "Leyland" as you would expect!) revealed him being called "Maurice" in 1935 here, and also Maurice in his Times obituary here. And unless the Wisden Obituary has been mis-transcribed, it was Maurice there too: check for yourself. Also, his Cricketer of the Year article from 1929 gives "Maurice", and the Australian press previews etc from 1928 all seem to give "Maurice" here. It's a question of finding something from the early 1920s which deigns to give his first name! Again, there is no doubt that he was really Morris, just a question of when he became "Maurice"; certainly by the time he became established at international level, he was "Maurice". And assuming that the practice then was to interview the chap for the Cricketer of the Year article, presumably he was happy with "Maurice", or gave the spelling himself. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
My theory: none-too-literate parents. Registered 1900 as Morris; census 1901 as Morriss; census 1911 as Maurice. Mother seems to be Marcy in 1901 and Mercy in 1911. Johnlp (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Cricketing knights

From Jack Hobbs : "In 1953, Hobbs became the second professional cricketer, after Don Bradman, to receive a knighthood for his services to the sport as a player (two cricket administrators had also previously been knighted)."

If you are considering people who were knighted for services to cricket there are three or four. Francis Lacey, Frederick Toone, and Pelham Warner who were knighted before Hobbs and Henry Leveson-Gower also in 1953. I won't bother about Vizzy though. I am raising a question in the project talk page about Bradman's status. Not sure how the Aussies are classified. Outstanding article, btw. Tintin 08:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm responsible for that bit in brackets. I'd overlooked Warner, though I suppose that his knighthood could be considered as also partly being for his contributions as player and author. If Leweson-Gower was in the New Year Honours and Hobbs in the Birthday Honours then he would also precede Hobbs; otherwise it's a dead heat. :) Perhaps it might be best to reword the sentence as "In 1953, Hobbs became the second cricketer, after Don Bradman, to receive a knighthood purely for his services to the sport as a player (a few cricket administrators had also previously been knighted)." (Ie drop "professional", add "purely" and delete reference to "two".) JH (talk page) 09:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine. I would even suggest to move the stuff in the bracket to a footnote, or even drop it altogether. Tintin 01:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Constantine

I see that you've been doing a substantial amount of copy editing. You deleted this sentence: "Bill Voce had pursued similar tactics earlier in the match and knocked out one of the home batsmen." I'd restore that, as it provides a possible explanation for why Constantine decided to bowl short. JH (talk page) 08:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is inevitably going to be longer than most, because he did so much. I agree that it shouldn't be any longer than necessary, but I wouldn't aim for any artitrary maximum length. Good luck with getting it to FA. JH (talk page) 21:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bal des Ardents

Thank you for reviewing Bal des Ardents - at PR and FAC. I had to step back after the PR and think about how to bring it all together, and finally found the right balance in the tricky sections! Truthkeeper (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. When you recently edited Arthur Mold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johnny Briggs (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) 10:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Verity

Congratulations. You really are the only person adding high quality in-depth cricket articles currently and it's much appreciated (by me, at least). Johnlp (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you, but I just tinker at the margins with people I consider under-recognised, and I have no pretence to depth (or ambitions for FAs or even GAs). Whereas you... Johnlp (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, congratulations! (I'm going to assume Johnlp has noticed I haven't worked on any articles recently so as not to take offence :P) I finally found some time to click over to the FAR, and it turned out it had already passed. Sorry about that! Looks like you didn't need my input anyway. Harrias talk 18:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too. JH (talk page) 21:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hedley Verity

Hi, I spotted your elevation of this article to featured status on the cricket project page and have just read it. Congratulations. It is a very fine piece about a great Yorkshire bowler who must be up there with Barnes, Rhodes, Spofforth and who have you as one of the best there's ever been.

I perceive that you relied mainly on Alan Hill's biography supplemented by additional input from other sources such as Robertson-Glasgow and I'd like to ask if you found that to be the best approach, rather than compiling notes from umpteen different sources and then collating it all. In other words, did you decide on one definitive biographical source first and then add to it? I ask because I'm working on Bill Shankly and have begun by working through his autobiography, written after he retired from Liverpool, as the key source. I am supplementing it by reference to a fortunately expansive tribute site within the official Liverpool domain and a significant biography by local writer Stephen Kelly. In addition, I have autobiographies by Ian St John and Tommy Smith which should be of use, plus a handful of other books. Sorry, I realise Shanks is the man who once said "I'll cricket you" when told about a cricket pitch in the Liverpool training complex, but I am a cricket fan too and was doing a little work on Fred Trueman till I decided to specialise. I intend to come back to Fred later.

Another question I have is around something I find a little confusing. Internet sources. Many articles have a section called External Links but I removed this from Shankly as the entries were either deadlinks or were being used in the article, especially the Liverpool one I mentioned above. I've currently included two sites in the references section as used sources but I see your websources are not in the bibliography. Instead you declare them in full at inline level. I take it your method is the approved one but can you please give me some guidance or rationale around what is expected re websources?

A final question. I would like to have a peer review done for Shankly when complete (still a fair bit outstanding) and then go to the good article process via phased approach to the featured level. Do you think that is sound, especially as I am on the Wikipedia learning curve, so to speak?

Any advice you can give me will be much appreciated. Again, great work on Hedley Verity. --Brian (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello again and thank you for the quick response. Your advice is very useful and I will go to the GA process when the article is ready. But I'll ask the Liverpool Task Force to look at it first. I'm interested in your view that autobiographies may be deprecated by some reviewers as I did perceive a need for other sources after I first expanded the article by using the autobiography. I'm currently working through the Kelly biography which itself relies heavily on the autobiography and I think I should perhaps supersede Shankly citations with Kelly equivalents where appropriate. As you say, autobiographies do present a single point of view and I've found examples where Shanks was adamant about something but Kelly has presented the alternative version for balance (e.g., Liverpool's decision not to have Shanks on the board after he retired). Ian St John, in his autobiography which I have yet to use in the article, presents a different view of many aspects.
I don't know if I'm capable enough but it would be good to bring the article up to featured status ahead of Shanks's centenary next year. The trouble is that it was in a bit of a state when I picked it up and much of my work so far has been a repair job and then working with what was available as a base for development. I might still make structural changes as there's one section in particular that I frown about every time I look at it although its content does add some value. We shall see.
Anyway, you've been a great help as a number of points are now clear in my mind, especially re websources. Thank you again.
Good luck with Ranji. Did you know he is believed to have been Frank Richards's inspiration for "Hurree Jamsit Ram Singh" in the Billy Bunter books, except that Hurree Singh was a fast bowler not a batsman? --Brian (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


Thanks

Hi Sarastro. Just wanted to thank you for taking the time to review Doc Adams at PR. I'm thrilled to see that you think it has a chance of making it through FAC when it's cleaned up; that's a strong statement from someone with your experience. I'm going to be fairly busy through next Wednesday, but I'll peck away at your comments here and there when I get the chance, and will let you know if I have any questions. Thanks again! Giants2008 (Talk) 00:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a question at the peer review about Adams' performance level and how I'm not really finding anything for it. If you could stop by again, I'd really appreciate it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'll add something on that once I finish the simple copy-edits you suggested. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Per your request at the peer review, I'm notifying you that the article is now at FAC. Any copy-editing assistance or further comments you can give would be great, if you are available. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


Percy Chapman

Hey. I'd be willing to review this article, but given the length of it as well as my lack of time on the site, the review would probably take place over the course of a couple weeks (I hate doing it but no way around it). Would you be alright with that? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the article myself with a view to reviewing it a few days ago, but am far too busy at the moment to commit myself to it, hence the comment on the lead! Looking a lot better now. Harrias talk 20:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

William the Conqueror

Anything else on him? We're getting close to taking him to FAC ... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hobbs again

You know far more about the requirements for FA and GA than I do, but it seems to me that - while brevity is a virtue - one shouldn't be too hog-tied by artitrary length limits. Surely how long an article should be ought to be governed by how important the person is and/or how much there is to be fitted in? Don Bradman is a Featured Article; how does the length of the Hobbs article compare with that?

That said, I've no objection in principle to splitting off some of the more detailed stuff into separate articles. I'm not sure if "The post-war career of Jack Hobbs" would be an ideal title, though, as someone coming across the article other than via the main article might initially be confused about which war it was. So I'd suggest something like "The post World War I career of Jack Hobbs". JH (talk page) 08:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. BTW, if you are looking for additional sources, I have Ralph Barker's book Ten Great Innings, where one of the innings is Hobbs' at The Oval in 1926. And somewhere I have a book devoted solely to that match, called IIRC The Great Match. I can't recall the author, but it was published within a year or two of the match taking place. JH (talk page) 17:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Constantine again

"Hammond publicly expressed sympathy for the discrimination suffered by Constantine and other black West Indians..." That could be interpreted as saying precisely the opposite of what you intended. Hammond was presumably sympathetic to the victims of the discrimination, rather than sympathising with their being disciminated against. I haven't changed it, as I'm not sure myself what a good form of words would be. JH (talk page) 20:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Hobbs

A flying visit to the site following an e-mail I received from Dweller about the idiot (you know who I mean). I'm glad to see that you are developing Jack Hobbs which became an unfinished project for me as I'm simply too busy in real life, but I would advise against over-reliance on Leo McInstry who does not have the credibility of Arlott, or even Mason, especially given his association with the Harperson. I've invariably found that the older sources, though perceived to be "unfashionable", have much more to say than "cool" (i.e, Blairite lunacy) modern alternatives. However, if you're happy that McInstry's view of Hobbs is acceptable and that his research has been thorough, then go ahead. ----Jack | talk page 21:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply but I'm having a good look around to see what the now-banned idiot has been up to in my absence. To be honest, I found the Master somewhat boring myself because he was strictly conventional and absolutely non-controversial, deferent even. Great player but ordinary in the extreme. Give me someone like Geoffrey any day. ----Jack | talk page 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hobbs quote

This is what it says:

"Hobbs... was in as brilliant form as he had been for a long time past but, unhappily, as in the three preceding seasons he found himself, owing to indisposition and injury, compelled to stand out of quite a number of championship games. How Surrey have suffered in this respect of recent years will, to some extent, be understood when it is mentioned that in the course of four seasons, the great batsman has been absent from no fewer than forty-two out of 108 competition fixtures contested by Surrey." Ref: Cite book | title = Wisden Cricketers' Almanack | edition = 1930 | volume = Part II | publisher = Wisden |chapter = Surrey Matches | page = 305.

My Wisdens go back to 1912 but I'm missing some war years (I'm less interested in them if there's no cricket worth reading about!). Johnlp (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page as Tintin had also posted there. There's a ready explanation. Johnlp (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Gilligan

I'll rummage and report back. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Alas, nothing from my Douglas-Home sources that will be of any help with Gilligan. I have access to the archives of The Times, Observer, Manchester Guardian, Financial Times, Daily Express and Daily Mirror, so if you want any rummaging done in them on any particular matter relating to Gilligan (or anyone else) don't hesitate to ask. Tim riley (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

From the infobox: "Bowling style Right arm fast-medium". My understanding is that before his injury he was genuinely fast, but after it he was probably no more than medium-paced. So I'd be inclined to put "fast" in the infobox. JH (talk page) 20:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like CI and CA may have decided to "split the difference", which isn't really very satisfactory. I would argue that his success as a bowler was almost all achieved when bowling fast, so that it is the most appropriate style to give precedence to. I don't think there should be any shortage of reliable sources to say that he was truly fast before his injury. JH (talk page) 20:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The political stuff is interesting, though a lot of it seems rather speculative. It's worth bearing in mind that at this time the main inspiration for the British Fascists would have been Mussolini, as I imagine that almost no-one in the UK would then have heard of Hitler. JH (talk page) 20:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, worth including. I suspect that quite a lot of "respectable" British people saw fascism as a good thing at that time. Those who still thought it was a good thing by the mid and late 1930s are more alarming. (I don't know if Gilligan was one of them.) BTW, it might be worth adding something to Toone's article. JH (talk page) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'd thought of Fry too. As for Toone, as far as I recall most of what I've read about him has been complimentary, but then it was mostly written by "establishment" figures such as Swanton. JH (talk page) 08:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Might be worth saying a bit more about his encouragement of Tate to switch from off-spinner to fast-medium bowler. Arguably that was Gilligan's most important contribution to English cricket. JH (talk page) 08:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have Ralph Barker's book Ten Great Bowlers, in which Tate is one of the featured ten. I know that has something about Gilligan's encouragement, and I'll see what I can unearth. JH (talk page) 09:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"He later played several charity games during the Second World War, including some for Sussex and for the Royal Air Force." Do we know if he was actually in the RAF in WW2? He would have been in his forties when war broke out, so presumably wouldn't have been too old to be called up. Since he was playing some cricket, he clearly hadn't been interned, which would have happened if the authorities had still had any worries about possible fascist sympathies. JH (talk page) 20:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Kapil Dev

Hi, can you provide an informal review of this list at its talk page. I'm willing to take this to FLC. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

TFA

I have nominated Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927, of which you are the main contributor, to be the featured article on the main page. The nomination can be found at WP:TFA/R. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hobbs Again

I can understand your feeling that you've had enough of the article for the time being! I haven't yet seen your to-do list, or indeed read your last night's updates to the article. But over the last couple of weeks I've been making my own notes on things that I think ought to be in. Some of them may have been addressed by later edits, but in case some are useful here they are:

  • Style and technique - incl. rated the best batsman on bad pitches (reference to his two famous partnerships with Sutcliffe on sticky wickets)
  • Contrast between pre-War and post-War batting style - more attacking pre-war (now mentioned in the lead)
  • Fine field at cover - reputed to have run out 15 batsmen on one tour of Australia
  • Four great opening partnerships (now mentioned in the lead) - excelled on their running between the wickets, especially with Rhodes
  • Origin of name "The Master"
  • The Master's Club (now mentioned in the lead but could do with a bit more - or even its own article which could be linked to?)
  • Very popular with his peers and the general public - modest, sense of humour

JH (talk page) 09:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927 being a Today's Featured Article! That's quite something. JH (talk page) 17:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:Spider-Man

Thanks, I read your review and I'll try going over the article when I get some spare time.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

G v P 1924

No, Wisden 1925 mentions the incident in three separate places that I can see – in the report on the match itself, in the blurb about Sussex in the front of the section on the county, and in the Notes by the Editor. But nowhere does it say who struck the blow. There are some quotes I can furnish you with about how the injury was more serious than was at first supposed, etc etc, if you want... Johnlp (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

An agency report published in Australia about three weeks after the incident seems to confirm that Pearson was the bowler - http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/45875607
RossRSmith (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tough reviewer, you?

I don't know where anyone would get that idea?! Uhmmm... Oh well. Seriously though, it was only meant in the most positive way: your reviews are by far the most thorough and productive I've received, and given the user in question had commented on how tough I was to please, I thought I'd pass your name along. Though it was possibly a tad unfair, as I know you have little interest in lists. I've started to look through your comments, but it might be slow going: things are a bit manic at the moment, and there are occasional breaks in the rain for me to watch cricket in too. Our season has been pretty disappointing so far: the Championship has been average, and the CB40 atrocious. Roll on the Twenty20, though I wouldn't be surprised if both our overseas players get struck down with a mystery illness yet... Harrias talk 18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I never came across you until last week. Looking at some of your GA reviews, it really gives me a feel that you are tough reviewer! In a positive way of course :) —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If you are not reviewing, can you make some copy edits to the Kapil Dev list. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a few things to get clarified. Please have a loot at the article's talk page. —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied to each of your comments at the GA review. A couple of questions for you over points. Harrias talk 13:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927

This is a note to let the main editors of Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 11, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 11, 2012. 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 delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might 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:

A caricature of Martin Hawke, 7th Baron Hawke

The Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927 arose from a disagreement among members of Yorkshire County Cricket Club over whether a professional cricketer should be appointed as the team captain. It was a tradition throughout English county cricket that captains should be amateurs. At Yorkshire, a succession of amateur captains held office in the 1920s, on the grounds of their supposed leadership qualities, although none were worth their place in the team as cricketers. The Yorkshire committee, prompted by the influential county president, Lord Hawke, approached Herbert Sutcliffe, one of the side's leading professionals. After Sutcliffe's provisional acceptance of the captaincy, controversy arose. Some Yorkshire members objected to the appointment because Sutcliffe was not an amateur; others felt that that Wilfred Rhodes, the team's senior professional, should have been asked. When Sutcliffe became aware of the furore, he withdrew his acceptance. No offer was made to Rhodes, and the county subsequently appointed amateur William Worsley as captain; he had little personal success and lasted just two seasons. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! JH (talk page) 08:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Reading the comments on the article's Talk page, I see what you mean. If someone thinks that there have been too many "Featured Article of the day" on cricket, surely (1) that suggests that other projects aren't being sufficiently active and (2) is something that should be taken up with the Wikipedia editors responsible for choosing which articles get featured rather than laid at your door. JH (talk page) 09:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Miles Morales again

Hi, Nightscream and I both managed to rework the article a bit per your suggestions. The only things I was not able to do were A.) find any prominent liberal commentators discussing it (aside from Stewart and Colbert poking fun at Beck and Dobbs) and B.) fix some of the "some say" bit in the initial paragraph on reception as the references in question refer to the reaction at large (fans, internet commentators etc) as opposed to specific groups or people.

Besides that Nightscream expanded the lead and I fixed the grammar issues as well as adding a bit to the reception section about early reviews of the comic. If there's anything missing I will try to include it soon. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Norman Yardley

I expect that CMJ's book will have a fair amount on Yardley's broadcasting career. I'll see what I can dig out. ISTR that Yardley's Wijipedia article didn't say anything about his broadcasting at all until I added a little. I can remember him as an expert summariser in the 1960s. He seemed like a very nice chap, understanding of the difficulties that the players faced and not one of the "it was a lot better in my day" brigade. In that he was a constrast to the other main summariser at that time, Freddie Brown, who tended to be very intolerant of the modern game (the Fred Trueman of his day) and who had a voice that sounded as if it had been well pickled in whisky over many years! JH (talk page) 08:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just checked and CMJ's book was very disappointing, having very little on Yardley, though it's useful for listing the BBC radio (and TV) commentary teams for every post-war Test. However I've found some useful stuff in Trevor Bailey's autobiography, not only about him as a broadcaster but also as a captain. JH (talk page) 18:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Does the CMJ book say how long Yardley was a commentator for?" That was why I mentioned the book's listing the BBC commentary team for every Test, as one can work it out from that. I was planning to add that information to the article for you. Unless I've missed any "appearances", it seems to have been from 1956-69, followed by a gap, and then again in 1973. (That would all have been under the TMS "banner" except for 1956, as TMS was only launched in 1957.) He won't have been part of the team for every Test in those years of course. JH (talk page) 19:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Have a look and see what you think. I was a little lazy, providing two separate full citations for the Bailey quotes, as they were on different pages. JH (talk page) 20:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this is all that the CMJ book has by way of description of Yardley: "... the two familiar voices at the end of each over were Brown's, rich and gravelly, and Yardley's gentler, polite, slightly hesitant tones with a characteristic little 'uh' punctuating his always charitable opinions." (page 99) JH (talk page) 08:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dewhurst

He's not mentioned in the article on the tour, which is short (only two pages, half of one of those taken up by the team list). I can't see that he's mentioned in any match report either: his only innings of note, when he was promoted to open the batting against Notts, doesn't rate a mention. The only fielding that's specifically commented upon is that of Constantine. Johnlp (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Mold

Congrats on the FA for Arthur Mold, and thank you for your continuing series of FA-quality articles. Finetooth (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Percy Fender

Glad that you've started improving his article. He probably wasn't Jewish, but I think it was widely rumoured that he was and he may have had Jewish ancestry. That might be one reason why someone acknowledged as the best captain of his time, and a very good all-round cricketer, never captained England, as there seems to have been a lot of anti-semitism in Britain between the wars. Of course getting on the wrong side of Lord Harris through writing for the press when touring Australia in 1920-1 probably had a lot to do with it too! JH (talk page) 09:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have the biography, but it must be twenty years or so since I read it, so I don't recall much beyond that: (1) yes, it's a very good book and (2) yes, Fender was a great bloke. JH (talk page) 17:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"When cricket resumed after the war in 1920 he claimed 124 victims." Have you overlooked 1919? JH (talk page) 20:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ta. JH (talk page) 20:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Three of his fingers were crushed at the tips, and when they healed were left a quarter-of-an-inch shorter than the others and remained stiff and numb for the rest of his life." Does Streeton say whether it was his right (bowling) or his left (non-bowling) hand? It's something that one would like to know. JH (talk page) 21:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"He began to experiment with leg spin bowling..." So presumanly he had bowled medium pace up to that point? That could do with being made clearer. "In the meantime, Fender attempted to gain a place at Caius College, Cambridge but was turned down owing to the restriction his injury placed upon his cricket, and his desire to concentrate on academic interests to further his business career." Surely his inability to play much cricket shouldn't have been a major factor? Also surely a "desire to concentrate on academic interests" should have been a plus point? Would it read better as "his desire to concentrate primarily on those parts of the curriculum which would help him in his business career"? JH (talk page) 08:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Overseas players

I have decided to wade into something a little different (and I don't mean all these IndyCar articles I'm suddenly working on). I'm am currently drafting an article on overseas players in county cricket (User:Harrias/Overseas players in English county cricket). Any input and suggestion of sources would be greatly appreciated. I've currently got a lot of the information from Birley's Social History of English Cricket, alongside a number of online sources. I will of course mention Yorkshire's stance on the situation! Speaking of Yorkshire; they seem to be having a decent Twenty20 campaign for once.. maybe it will be they that beat Somerset in the final this year. Harrias talk 19:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Ranji piece of the article, I'm quite interested in the reference for the following sentence: "Yet it is unlikely that he met the qualification rules in force at the time for appearing in the County Championship; this was hinted at by Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, but no protests were made." Do you have Wilde's Ranji. The Strange Genius of Ranjitsinhji, and if so, would you be able to shoot that page (54, and any around there with any discussion of this) over to me by email? Thanks, Harrias talk 14:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks regards the Wilde book! I've suggested to JH that further conversation might be best placed on the sandbox talk page to avoid too much confusion, as I suspect I might be coming back and forth for more input as I go along. I might move the current threads of conversation over there at some point. Harrias talk 22:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer)

Learie

I will start on the Learie PR this weekend and we'll see how it goes. In return, I may ask you to review an article (not musical) which I have brewing; I'll keep you posted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sherlock (TV series)/archive1

Hello. I don't think I ever thanked you for your comprehensive peer review of Sherlock (TV series), and also your kind comments. I'm enacting you suggestions gradually, real life commitments allowing, and have nominated it at GAC. Many thanks again. The JPStalk to me 21:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Alan Peach

Since I was the original creator of the article, you should be able to guess my opinion. :) As usual when CA and CI disagree, CricketArchive is correct. I've never seen him referred to as anything other than Alan. If you're planning on extending the article, then I'd be delighted. JH (talk page) 21:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I recognise that name of Miles Howell, but don't recall anything about him, though I'm sure I must have read about him a few times (in particular in the two histories of Surrey that I have). BTW, regarding Fender, presumably you'll be mentioning the reports for the press that he wrote - as also did Rockley Wilson - on the 1920-1 tour, which may well explain why he didn't play much more for England and never became captain. JH (talk page) 21:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a rare error by CA. Since Wilkinson was still club captain, it seems unlikely that he would play but not as captain, especially as he would hardly be worth a place considered just as a player. I found a little on Miles Howell in David Lemmon's "The History of Surrey County Cricket Club", on page 150: "Wilkinson had been unable to play regularly in 1919, nor in 1920 when, on top of his business commitments, a leg injury had kept him out of the side. The man originally marked down to succeed to the Surrey captaincy was Miles Howell, who had led Oxford University at both cricket and soccer and whose father and brother had both played for the County, but, as it transpired, he was unable to play with any regularity. Indeed, he played only 36 times for Surrey between 1919 and 1925, assisting the County, as Wisden noted, 'whenever they could get him, though it usually meant that some pro whom other counties would have welcomed with open arms had to stand down for him', After 1925, Howell played mainly for the Free Foresters." The Wisden writer strikes a surprisingly bolshie note for that period! Lemmon continues: "The inability of Howell to play had allowed the job of captaincy to fall on Fender - initially because he was the only amateur in the side but after Wilkinson's resignation because he had displayed such enterprise and imagination when he had led the side." Lemmon says that he was appointed the official captain when he was away on the tour of Australia. JH (talk page) 09:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fender

Will look tomorrow. Been Olympicking tonight at Wembley. Johnlp (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"In general, he withstood the hot weather better than his team-mates, but his weak leg made fielding painful on the hard ground. In all first-class games, he completed the double of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets for the first time. He scored 325 runs at 27.08 and took 32 wickets at 32.71..." That's gone awry! You've inserted the new material (including the bit about 53 catches) in a paragraph about the 1920-1 tour rather than in the correct place. JH (talk page) 09:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Lemmon, he was Andrew Jeacocke rather than Alfred. Apparently he opened the innings in 1921 in the absence of Hobbs, did well and was an especially strong driver, as well as being a fine slip fielder. He was an amateur who had a residential qualification for Surrey. Lemmon says: "In 1922, however, his cricket came to an abrupt end after friction and controversy. Kent, or Lord Harris, had challenged his qualification for Surrey, saying that it was not valid. In fact, the house in which he lived was in Kent, but the other side of the road was in Surrey. For the last years of his career Jeacocke played mainly for Free Foresters." I've added him to my ever-lenthening "to do" list, as it's an interesting story. Lemmon doesn't seem to mention the match ehen only he and Fender were on time for the start of play. I think I've heard about it, but that may well have been from the Streeton book! JH (talk page) 20:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just looked up Jeacocke in the Wisden archive on Cricinfo. There's a short obituary (which contradicts Lemmon by saying that he played for Surrey until 1929). I also found him mentioned in this article by Andrew Sandham, in the context of a splendid anecdote about Fender. JH (talk page) 21:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Having looked up Jeacocke on CA, my faith in Lemmon is rather shaken! His first name does seem to have been Alfred, and it looks as if the question of his qualification must have come up in 1929 rather than 1922; after May 1929 he continued to play for Surrey but only in non-Championship matches such as against the universities. JH (talk page) 08:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"After the season, Fender joined a short tour of Jamaica led by Lord Tennyson, playing three first-class matches against the cricket team." Against which cricket team?! Assuming you mean against the Jamaica team then I suggest "against the island team" or something along those lines. JH (talk page) 08:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Among his favoured shots were the drive, pull and cut." That reads a bit funny, as it doesn't leave a lot - just the leg glance and the hook, which batsmen only rarely get the chance to play anyway. Oh, and the sweep I suppose. Most batsmen have a preference for either the front foot shots or the back foot shots, but it seems that Fender was proficient at both. JH (talk page) 21:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hope this little snippet might help - 'tis from To The Wicket page 94, by Dudley Carew (Chapman & Hall 3rd ed. 1950) discussing Fender he writes
"As a batsman he was a fast-footed hitter. He had height and reach and a belief in his eye, and many a ball which would have passed outside the off-stump found itself picked up and deposited over the ropes wide of long-on."
RossRSmith (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
"From 1921, his form meant that he was chosen regularly for England..." "Regularly" seems to be overstating it. I would have thought that "occasionally" would be closer to the mark. "Fender himself did consider that these factors would have been held against him." That reads a little oddly. Should there perhaps be a "not" after "did"? JH (talk page) 08:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Fender captaincy

In view of your exchange re CricketArchive's accuracy above, this may be relevant:

"Mr Fender was appointed captain from May up to the end of July, and at Mr. Wilkinson's request, as things were not going very well, he again took charge of the side in the closing matches." Wisden 1921, Chapter "Surrey Matches", Part II, Page 74. Johnlp (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. In David Lemmon's history of Surrey, concerning the match against Northamptonshire he writes that Fender knew that Wilkinshire intended to declare at tea, so slearly Lemmon thought that Wilkinson was the captain. In those days did Wisden indicate who the captain was in the individual scorcards? JH (talk page) 18:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No. Nor is there any indication in the reports on the individual matches. Johnlp (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
My reading of Fender's bio by Streeton is that Wilkinson took over towards the end of the season but results were not great and Fender resumed control for the big matches at the end of the season. The Times does not indicate who was captain either, btw. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
"Fender... was now virtually in complete charge of the eleven, having quietly taken over from C. T. A. Wilkinson at the latter's request late in the season..." From "Plum Warner's Last Season (1920)", by Ronald Mason (Epworth Press, 1970). BTW, Wilkinson played in neither the preceding Surrey match at The Oval nor the final match of the season (the one at Lord's of which there is a detailed description in the Mason book) which followed the game at Northampton. Johnlp (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
These were the two vital games I think; the last decided the championship, and the Oval game was against my lot; we were front runners as usual but, rather unfortunately, Fender won that one for Surrey. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fender bowling in 1921 Wisden

"Surrey's bowling depended in the main on Rushby, Hitch and Fender, G. M. Reay being an invaluable helper... Fender as a bowler was full of resource and, though often quite expensive, did a lot of first-class work. His break was as puzzling as ever, and he was quick to find out the weak points of the batsmen." Page 75, rest of ref as other quote from Wisden 1921 above.

Not much else on bowling: quite a bit on captaincy and the way he turned Surrey into a fine fielding side: "In one particular... Surrey cricket has never been better. The fielding, taking one day with another, was superb. Under Mr. Fender's inspiring leadership the side worked together like one man, their efforts being a constant delight to the crowds that gathered at the Oval. Strudwick kept wicket in his finest form all through the season, and Hitch, wherever he was placed but especially at short leg, Fender himself in the slips, Hobbs and Peach on the off-side, and Sandham in the deep field, were almost beyond praise." This is same ref but page 73.

Johnlp (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Constantine FAC

I shall be away from home until next Friday (17th) with limited computer access and of course, no library. I intend to check in from time to time but will not be able to do any extensive work on the FAC, should the need arise. Given the rate at which FACs are moving these days (I've just reviewed one that's been on the page since 29 June) that should not be a problem – though Heber came and went rather quickly – there'll be plenty of time for me to get involved a little later. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Saga (comics)

Hi. Do you know how I can get someone to evaluate the quality of the Saga (comics) article? Nightscream (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I nominated it for Good Article, but if you're willing to take a look at it to address any areas where it could use improvement, please, by all means, do so. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review?

Hi Sarastro, I was wondering if you'd be interested in/have time to do a peer review for me. I've gotten Ruth Norman up to GA and I think it's in decent shape, just under 3000 words. It's a pretty odd subject, about a nice old lady who led a UFO cult of sorts. No problem if you can't get to it though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for all the feedback, your comments were a great help. I think I've taken care of them at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Polly Umrigar

Hi, can you help me with this article. Regards! —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to expand the article and if everything goes well, I'll go for GAN. Do you have any books on him? —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Arlott, p.19.
  2. ^ Altham, p.24.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sarastro1/Archive_6&oldid=1141409960"