Wikipedia:Peer review/Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer)/archive1
Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer)[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently became a good article and I hope to take it to FAC. I'm particularly interested in how readable it is and if all the stuff about the googly is intelligible to non-cricketers.
Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: I will review this piecemeal, as opportunities present themselves. I will also make small alterations in the text when these are obvious. Here are some comments on the lead and early life sections:-
- Lead
- Your definition of a googly ("a delivery which looks like a leg break but is an off break") is a bit flat. The essence of the googly is that it deceives the batsman - could this be worked into the definition?
- I've tried to do this, but it may be too convoluted now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Some broad indication of dates should be given to cover his Eton, Oxford and early Middlesex matches
- To say he "discovered a method of bowling a googly" suggests that the googly already existed and he found a way of bowling it. I would say "developed", and perhaps say "developed a method of bowling the ball later christened the 'googly'"
- "Bosanquet was now selected..." Give the dates for the Australian tour.
- "...when he bowled out Australia in the first Test of 1905, taking eight wickets in an innings". Language might confuse non-cricket people (who may read this because they remember Reggie). I'd neutralise it to, say "when his bowling led England to victory in the first Test against Australia in 1905".
- "From this point..." - not sure when "this" is.
- Early life
- "Many of Bosanquet's relations..." It's not clear if you mean Bernard Snr or Jun.
- Not entirely sure it matters as they would all be related anyway! But made it Junior so that the next paragraph follows on without specifying which one it is. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Subject should not be "he" in a new paragraph.
Nice images, by the way Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
A bit more
- Oxford University
- General point: this section has considerably more detail than is necessary. Half this length could adequately describe this stage of Bosanquet's career.
- I've trimmed a little, but not quite sure which parts should come out, as I'd like a little about each of his seasons there and I think it is worth having his University Match scores as it was such a big occasion. But willing to change this. Suggestions would be appreciated! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- "In that match, he made his highest score of the season, an unbeaten 54. He had more success with the ball..." THe second sentence needs to separate itself from "that match", since his bowling success relates to the whole season
- I think "soft ball" used as an adjective requires a hyphen
- "By 1899, he regularly bowled in the nets during Oxford matches, bowling to the best opposing batsmen in the lunch break where he would bowl several leg breaks followed by an off break without changing his bowling action; this would often hit the unsuspecting batsman on the knee and was considered to be amusing for spectators". Somewhat odd; why did his captain allow this? For clarity I'd alter it slightly: "By 1899, during the lunch breaks in Oxford matches, he often practiced in the nets by bowling to the best opposing batsmen. He would deliver several leg breaks followed by an off break, without changing his bowling action; the ball would sometimes hit the unsuspecting batsman on the knee, which was considered to be amusing for spectators".
- This is what Bosanquet says happened. It is a story told against himself as he finishes the anecdote with words to the effect of "and then they took me away and locked me up for the day." I read it as a bit of a gimmick, like a conjouring trick, that no-one thought much of, presumably no "star" batsmen encountered him here, and it was to entertain either themselves or spectators. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Would it be appropriate here to mention that Australians call the googly a "bosie"? (Maybe you do later)
- "He maintained his faster style of bowling but now began to bowl slow leg breaks" Needs an "also" or an "as well" somewhere.
- "in his thirteenth match and 23rd innings" This is somewhat irrelevant overdetailing
- "with a flourish" - POVish.
- Last sentence far too long. Suggest full stop after Wisden, then "It was the first time...", and "attracted" rather than "began to attract" ("first time that his new bowling style began to attract..." is very awkward phrasing).
- Last sentence: it's odd that he was afraid of alerting opponents to his new bowling when he was serving it up to them in the nets!
- As I said, I imagine there were no important batsmen who faced him in the nets, but certainly Warner and MacGregor encountered him at some point before he became "famous". And possibly he stopped showing off once he realised he was on to something big. However, this is speculation completely unsupported by any source! If it looks too odd, I could simply take out the story about the nets, but I think it shows the development quite well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Will keep at it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments so far. As ever, much appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Still more:-
- Controversy in NZ
- Redlinking Whatman is overlinking. He was not a first-class cricketer.
- Actually, he was. This tour was first-class, and he also took part in other first-class tours. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Good club cricketers often went along on these private tours. Who did Whatman play for, apart from private touring teams?
- I like the story. It would be good to know why Sims thought there was doubt about the dismissal - clean bowled is normally pretty unequivocal.
- He was unsighted, like the umpires, which I've now added. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Recognition of the googly
- The "Gentlemen of Philadelphia" were a touring side, presumably
- "In the match at Scarborough..." What match was this? Also "made nine" won't be clear to non-cricketers
- The "However" in the second paragraph is unnecessary
- M.C.C. tour of Australia
- General point: per my remarks on the Oxford section, I find this match-by-match approach to reporting the tour rather ponderous. Within a neutral encyclopedia article there are obvious limits to the language that can be employed to describe a player's performances, and so it all reads rather tediously. Do the minor matches have to be mentioned? Here are a few examples of what I would say was unnecessary overdetailing:-
- "After the Test, Bosanquet took six wickets for 27 in a minor game against a team of Melbourne Juniors, going on to eight wickets in the match,[5] but remained in Melbourne with three other members of the side while the team travelled to Bendigo and played another minor match".
- "...and he was still unfit to play in a minor game against Ballarat".
- "Bosanquet then played in a minor match without achieving much with bat or ball".
- On a different point, "..., one wicket coming from a ball which bounced three times and was very wide". How was the dismissal effected - caught? bowled? other?
Sorry for the snail's pace review but it's all I can do at this time. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. A slow, thorough review is much better than a quick, unhelpful one! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The last part
- 1904 season
- It reads a bit oddly when you say that 1904 was his best season with bat and ball, following with a string of batting failures. Perhaps some rephrasing in the inttroduction?
- "Yorkshire, who were second in the table..." Should this be "Yorkshire, who finished second in the table"?
- Is it worth drawing attention to the 1000 runs/100 wickets season's "double"
- Some numerics, e.g. ten, fourteen, should be numerics.
- 1905 season
- "He became the first player to score two centuries and take ten wickets in the same match; only two further players have since achieved the feat, as of October 2010." It should be clarified that this relates to first-cless cricket. A footnote identifying the other two players would be interesting.
- Do we know why he wasn't given a bowl in the Lord's Test? One would have imagined that in view of his success at Nottingham he would have been England's fourth bowling choice before E.G. Arnold. Any clues from Wisden?
- Wisden doesn't even mention him in the Lord's report. It mentions his loss of form in the first Test report, so that is the only explanation I can think of. The other possibility (and Arnold was quite highly rated at this time and not a negligible bowler) is that the pitch was rain affected and maybe Bosanquet was not considered worth risking on a sticky wicket. But that is speculation and the soources say nothing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Later career
- "...scoring 1,081 runs and averaging 54.05, topping the first-class batting averages" Four "...ing" endings in quick succession. Try to rephrase
- Style and technique
- The Wisden quote about him sending down more bad balls than any other front rank bowler has already been used, in the 1905 section
- Will the less-aware know what "driving" means in the cricket context? Is there a related link?
- Personal life and legacy
- The Daily Mail was co-founded by the Harmsworth brothers, Alfred and Harold, later Lords Northcliffe and Rothermere respectively. I'm sure that Mary Janet Kennedy-Jones wasn't the daughter of either of these, so who was this mystery MP? We need a little more precision and clarity here.
- We don't say "He left behind £2,276". We might say "He left "£2,276" or, better, "He left an estate valued at £2,276". I also think you are asking for trouble by converting this to a present-day value using the RPI. These conversions frequently cause arguments. You are not obliged to include them; if you do, my own view now is that you should be circumspect. Put the information in a footnote, along the lines of: "According to Masuringworth.com..." etc.
- Took out conversion as the amount is not especially noteworthy. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Bosie or Bosey? (One of them was Oscar Wilde's boyfriend, I'm not sure which)
- Times gives Bosey, but Bosie seems more common, so changed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Which concludes my review. Interesting article about a genuinly interesting cricketer, which with a little more work could easily be a featured article candidate. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)