Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2017 [1].

Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851[edit]

Nominator(s): Lourdes (talk) and Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first first-class cricket match to take place in Australia, although that is more of a quirk of history as the concept of such games is rather anachronistic. However, it was a grand occasion and the first cricket game between two colonies/states in Australia. Most of the heavy lifting in this article was done by Lourdes, over quite a long period. I sauntered in and added a few more sources and a bit of context. I think this article now meets the criteria. It is a GA (review here under a different name), was nominated at FAC twice before (here and here under a slightly different name) and had two PRs, but the article has changed considerably since then. Wehwalt kindly gave some thoughts on the talk page. It is sourced as well as it can be. Any further thoughts or comments are welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, yada yada. See the history for my edits. (I don't have my macros on this computer). - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you edits and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comments both at the earlier peer review and informally on talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and earlier comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Although I have never played cricket, I enjoy reading about it. Fortunately, this article has links to most of the delicious terms I find mysterious. I have a few minor questions and suggestions, as follows:
Lede
  • "The next morning, the home team scored the required runs for the loss of one more wicket, recording a three-wicket victory." – A baseball player might wonder why this isn't expressed as a 141 to 139 victory.
Background
  • "the New South Wales governor ordered that equipment should be made in government workshops" - For this game only?
  • "The distances between the colonies..." – Would it be helpful for outsiders to know how far this was? Would it be helpful to name the colonies as they existed then?
  • Not sure about these. It seems a touch overdetailed to me, and I'm not too sure where to find out. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only three years after the foundation of Melbourne" – Should that be "founding" rather than "foundation"?
  • "there were few clubs, and none in Hobart until 1832 or in Launceston until 1841" – Outsiders probably won't know that Hobart is in the south and Launceston the north. It's implied later in the paragraph, but maybe just saying it straight out would be more clear.
Van Dieman's Land innings
  • What is the meaning of the 7 in "34/7" in the total runs box?
Aftermath
  • "During and after the game, social events continued to take place..." – Tighten to "Social events continued during and after the game..."?
  • "reinforced by four cricketers from southern Tasmania (which was later recognised as a Tasmanian team)..." – Would this be more instantly clear as "from southern Tasmania, which later had its own team"?
  • Not quite what it means. It's quite ambiguously phrased so I've tried to clear that up a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  • None of the three images has alt text. I've been largely absent from FAC for a while, so perhaps alt text is no longer required for FA. Not sure. Finetooth (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks for your comments, always good to see you at FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. An enjoyable read, and I now understand the scoring conventions a little better. I have noted my support above. Finetooth (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support -- Old-time sports articles generally pique my interest. I'll comment as I read:

  • " and was reasonably popular by the mid-1810s,[7] the first recorded matches took place only in 1825." -- Am I misreading this? It was reasonably popular ten years before the first recorded matches took place. What's a recorded match if it's different from previous matches?
  • In cricket, historically, a "recorded match" refers to a match that has an available scorecard documented in a reliable source. This piece by ESPN on the history of cricket would give you a fair idea of the usage of the term "recorded match". "Reasonably popular" refers to the public indulging in the sports at a recreational level. I'll defer to Sarastro1 to decide whether to use a note here to clarify, or leave it as it is. Lourdes 11:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A recorded match is one for which at least the names of the teams and a date survive, sometimes a scorecard. This simply means that cricket was played, but no records of organised games survive. It might just have been a knock about in a field. I'm inclined to think we don't really need to expand on this too much. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't desire expansion at all, just wanted to clarify what was meant by this. -- Shudde talk 07:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "born in England but emigrating to Australia in 1844 and establishing himself as a leading figure at the MCC" -- the tense used here reads strange to me. Could I suggest "who was born in England and emigrated to Australia in 1844 before establishing himself as a leading figure at the MCC"
  • "An invitation was sent to Launceston Cricket Club" --> "An invitation was sent to the Launceston Cricket Club" ?
  • " bowlers in Tasmania continued to use underarm bowling at a time when round-arm bowling was permitted in the rest of the world." -- was roundarm bowling forbidden in Tasmania or was it just not practiced?
You're right. Tasmania did not allow round arm bowling. I've placed a note for clarifying the same. Lourdes 12:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the Tasmanian team was selected from throughout the colony, is there any information on how they were selected?
I've searched all the relevant sources, but have not been able to find out information on how they were selected. Maybe Sarastro1 might have more inputs here. Lourdes 12:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are very vague on selection for most 19th century cricket. I could hazard a guess or two, but nothing with a reference and mainly OR; it was probably a case of who was a decent cricketer and who was available to play. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Up to "First innings" and so far so good. Will finish the review promptly. -- Shudde talk 10:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • The first innings section reads very well to me, but I am familiar enough with cricket that most of the jargon doesn't phase me. A novice's opinion would probably be valuable.
  • "Hall was leg before wicket from the bowling of McDowall shortly afterwards for six" --> "Hall was dismissed leg before wicket from the bowling of McDowall shortly afterwards for six" ?
  • "William Phillpot was run out by Tabart for three and Cooper was bowled by Henty for a duck, the fifth man out with the score on 28." -- is this a run-on sentence?
  • I think it is reasonable enough as it is, containing just two clauses. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can an innings "take" 17 overs?
  • "won matches at the college and may have played further games in Tasmania." -- it isn't explicitly clear that this is referring to Bishopthorpe College (and I assume this is who "college" is). I suggest "played and won further matches at the college and may have played additional games in Tasmania."
  • Went for the simplest option and named the college again. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In one, they defeated a team from Launceston, reinforced by four cricketers from southern Tasmania (which, although it contained only southern players was later officially designated a team representing the whole of Tasmania); they then beat a team from Hobart composed only of southern Tasmanians." -- is the bracketed comment properly placed here?
  • I think it is, unless you have a better suggestion. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're going to have to clarify this for me. The team from Lauceston (northern Tasmania as I understand it) was reinforced with some southern players, yet the whole team also contained only southern players and was later officially designated a team representing the whole of Tasmania? -- Shudde talk 07:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shudde, I've shifted the note a few words later so that it makes sense. I guess the "all southern players" reference is to the Hobart team, and not the Launceston team. I've corrected that - however, would prefer Sarastro1 checks off this addition before you strike this off your checklist. Lourdes
Looks fine to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Converted the statement in brackets to a note. Lourdes 07:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great thanks. That clarifies that. -- Shudde talk 14:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the heavy defeats" -- that they were heavy was not mentioned earlier (and neither was the score of those two matches). Maybe: "Both defeats were heavy for Tasmania, but despite this the popularity of the matches led directly to the formation of a new club ..." or something
  • "Tasmanian cricket remained less developed than that in the rest of Australia and failed to keep pace with changes in the game." -- it's implied but not explicitly stated, but did the lack of inter-colonial cricket contribute to this, or was it the other way around (or a mixture of the two).
  • The sources are not really clear on this at this point in the tale; earlier it was self-inflicted to some extent. At this point, it would be guesswork on my part. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their match against New South Wales in Melbourne in 1856 was the first between two colonies on the Australian mainland." -- this could read as though this was the first inter-colonial match to take place on the mainland (which is false) rather than the first between two mainland colonies. Needs to be rewritten.
  • "By 1864" --> "In 1864"? -- I think by is the wrong preposition here, as it's occurred in 1864 not before 1864.
  • "In 1871, Norwood Cricket Club in Adelaide arranged matches against Melbourne." -- were these club fixtures or defacto inter-colonial matches?
  • "the first team played 12 games, winning six and losing two with the remainder drawn, and the second team played 16 games, winning 10 and drawing 6." -- per WP:NUMNOTES should probably be "the first team played 12 games, winning 6 and losing 2 with the remainder drawn, and the second team played 16 games, winning 10 and drawing 6."
  • "One of the umpires from the game, C. J. Weedon, retained a ball used in the match. His family later donated it to the Launceston museum.[17]" -- this sentence seems oddly placed, I'd consider it moving it to somewhere earlier in that section.
  • "In recent years, the match has been recognised as the initial first-class match to be played in Australia." I know some explanation is given later in the paragraph, but why "In recent years"? Was it in 1981 or not?
  • This is a good question. The available sources are woefully vague on individual matches. I'm not really comfortable going further than this as I don't know at what point someone sat down and said "You know, this should have been first-class!" Hence the slightly ambiguous wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could always say it is "now" rather than "recently" recognised. This avoids the problem to some extent. -- Shudde talk 07:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fitted in the term "now". Seems doable. Lourdes 07:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead (which I normally read last):

  • "The match was planned to celebrate the separation of the Port Phillip District from New South Wales in 1851 as the colony of Victoria." -- is this quite true? Reading the article it seemed to indicate that this was more of a coincidence and so the match was incorporated into these celebrations.
  • "Van Diemen's Land replied with 104, assisted by a large number of extras, coping better than expected with the overarm bowling, although Thomas Antill took three wickets in four balls in returning figures of seven wickets for 33 runs." -- I think this sentence reads a little awkwardly and you should consider splitting it up.

Overall a well written and interesting article. I have few complaints and most of my comments are very pretty trivial. I have not checked the sources, captions or images, but am happy with it's coverage and prose. I look forward to supporting. -- Shudde talk 15:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to you and Lourdes for addressing my concerns. I'm happy to support. -- Shudde talk 14:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria. Lourdes 13:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bruce1ee[edit]

I'm familiar with and enjoy modern-day cricket, so it was interesting to read how cricket was in those days. I've made several minor edits here, and I have a few comments:

Build-up

  • Why does "round-arm bowling" have a hyphen, but "underarm bowling" doesn't?

First innings

  • "They batted for an hour ... at which point a lunch break was taken": do we have the lunch time score?

Scorecard

  • This section has no sources.
  • Maybe I'm being stupid, but what are the numbers in brackets in the Method of dismissal column in the 2nd innings? Why are they absent from the 1st innings?
  • I've left a note at the end of the scorecard; they refer to batting position in the second innings and are standard cricket usage. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • "Tasmanian cricket remained less developed than that in the rest of Australia and failed to keep pace with changes in the game.": For how long, or is this still true today?
  • Tasmanian cricket developed post World War II. In recent years, they've won the Sheffield Cup too. So no, it is not true today. Lourdes 14:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands that sentence suggests that Tasmanian cricket still is less developed than the rest of Australia. I think it should be changed to something like "Until World War II, Tasmanian cricket remained less developed ..." —Bruce1eetalk 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified this to reflect the source as we'd need to get other sources if we wanted to go down the WW2 route. Our source really only covers the 1800s. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • The CricketArchive sources need a "(subscription required)" tag
  • Added a registration required tag. Lourdes 14:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref [7] (Finlay, Ric): I can't reach www.crickettas.com.au – is this a dead link, or is it just me? —Bruce1eetalk 12:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just you. Could be an issue with the browser. Try Firefox. Lourdes 14:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am using Firefox (52.0.2). I've tried again and I'm still getting "Server not found". —Bruce1eetalk 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working for me too. Not sure what the issue is here. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to worry, it could be my service provider. —Bruce1eetalk 07:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • The Kaufman, Jason; Patterson, Orlando is a JSTOR source and needs a "(subscription required)" tag
  • Added a registration required tag. Lourdes 14:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—Bruce1eetalk 19:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Bruce1ee for the time taken to review this article. Lourdes 14:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias talk[edit]

  • I'm mostly just looking at the scorecard; from the comments above, I'm happy to blindly support the prose.
    • What is the justification for the smaller font size? Per MOS:FONTSIZE, it should be used sparingly, and in this case I don't think it should be necessary; 1889–90 Currie Cup seems to display fine even on some quite small monitor resolutions using full-size font.
      • Shifted to normal font size. Lourdes 01:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per MOS:DTT you should use row and column scopes in the table. The Currie Cup table doesn't actually do this (oops) but 1978 Gillette Cup Final gives an example.
    • It probably isn't necessary to link Van Diemen's Land and Port Phillip quite so many times in the Scorecard section. In fact, it probably isn't necessary to link them at all, given they have been linked earlier in the article.
      • Done. I've reduced the linking to once in the whole article. Lourdes 01:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Key needs to include "st" for a stumping, and "lbw" given they happened in the match.
    • If you've got the width (I'm not sure) I'd write out byes, leg-byes and no-balls in full in the "Extras" row, rather than the abbreviations.
    • The table shows that Antill didn't have any bowling figures in the second innings, and yet he seems to have taken six wickets. Assume something has gone wrong with the table.
    • In Port Phillip's second innings, it should say "b 1" (or "byes 1"), not "b; 1".
  • No ISBN for The Complete History of Cricket Tours at Home and Abroad? Harrias talk 20:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias for the review. Lourdes 01:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Great piece of work, well done both. Harrias talk 09:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review and support, and thanks to Lourdes for getting these. I'm afraid I'm a little snowed under at the moment! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note / source review[edit]

Re. the source review request at WT:FAC, it looks like some work has already been done above; I think I can add a few points without having to recuse myself from coord duties...

  • I don't see any reliability issues.
  • Formatting-wise, unless I missed something it looks like FNs 23 and 27 are identical; also I'd expect title case for the paper, hence "and" not "And".
  • Lastly, is there a particular reason Barclay's World of Cricket appears as short cite plus book ref for Kilburn and Coward, and long citation for the two instances of Dunstan and Coward?
  • No real reason, put them together as short cites with book ref. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Ian for the note and review. Lourdes 08:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Van_Diemen%27s_Land_v_Port_Phillip,_1851/archive1&oldid=1138474908"