GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Guettarda ( talk · contribs) 16:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
Guettarda. Thanks for starting this review. Please let me know if I can help with anything. All the best.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
22:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This is an interesting topic, and you've done nice work on it. Some things that could still use some work.
There are surviving scorecards of three first-class matches in which the Hampshire county team played against an England teamSomething like "Scorecards survive from three first-class matches..." or even "First class status has been awarded retrospectively to three matches between Hampshire county and England for which scorecards have survived" (although the latter would require reworking the opening sentence a bit).
Nottingham forfeited the match after being dismissed for 14- I think
14 runsis worth specifying here.
Hampshire & Sussex team- which source? Two sources are cited, but I suspect that neither is the original source you're referring to.
Recognised as the inaugural, though unofficial, first-class match- I'm a big fan of "by whom" in contexts like this. While CricInfo and Cricket Archive are mentioned in the following section as listing the match as F1, is that their decision or was this designation applied by an earlier historian? (I feel like, cricket historians being what they are, someone would have decided that long before these relatively modern sources were established.
The game on 24–25 June was the first for many years to leave a scorecard.When I read this I immediately ask "since when?" Do you know when the last scorecard before 1772 is from?
Tuesday, 2 June. It doesn't fit with the way the rest of the article is written
The Hampshire team was- I think "consisted of" would be better than "was", which feels odd here.
Guettarda ( talk) 23:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Guettarda. Hope you are well. This is an excellent review and just what I was hoping for. The article itself has something of a history, as you probably appreciate, and what we have here is a restoration from 2018 which I've amended. The content had been heavily reduced prior to the aborted merger, possibly because of doubts about the sources. My contacts in the publishing world have access to the source books and they've confirmed everything verifies. That said, I agree with you that more work is needed on the prose, lead and structure. I'll add the image you've found and see if I can find any more, though it's unlikely there'll be much out there given the date and subject.
The 2018 version originally had a hugely elaborate table which I converted into standard wikitable, although I still had doubts as to whether it was the best thing for the article. I wondered about converting it into prose. I do think you're right that it could be too much for some readers.
Please leave it with me a few days. I've been very busy of late but things have settled now and I should be able to come back soon. I'll answer all your points individually so I don't miss any.
Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 12:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello again, Guettarda. I've managed to make plenty of time for this and a lot of changes have been done. The table has gone and I think it's much better without it, especially with images in there. When you have time, could you please look at it again and let me have more feedback. Thanks again for your help which has been really useful. All the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Guettarda ( talk · contribs) 16:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
Guettarda. Thanks for starting this review. Please let me know if I can help with anything. All the best.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
22:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This is an interesting topic, and you've done nice work on it. Some things that could still use some work.
There are surviving scorecards of three first-class matches in which the Hampshire county team played against an England teamSomething like "Scorecards survive from three first-class matches..." or even "First class status has been awarded retrospectively to three matches between Hampshire county and England for which scorecards have survived" (although the latter would require reworking the opening sentence a bit).
Nottingham forfeited the match after being dismissed for 14- I think
14 runsis worth specifying here.
Hampshire & Sussex team- which source? Two sources are cited, but I suspect that neither is the original source you're referring to.
Recognised as the inaugural, though unofficial, first-class match- I'm a big fan of "by whom" in contexts like this. While CricInfo and Cricket Archive are mentioned in the following section as listing the match as F1, is that their decision or was this designation applied by an earlier historian? (I feel like, cricket historians being what they are, someone would have decided that long before these relatively modern sources were established.
The game on 24–25 June was the first for many years to leave a scorecard.When I read this I immediately ask "since when?" Do you know when the last scorecard before 1772 is from?
Tuesday, 2 June. It doesn't fit with the way the rest of the article is written
The Hampshire team was- I think "consisted of" would be better than "was", which feels odd here.
Guettarda ( talk) 23:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Guettarda. Hope you are well. This is an excellent review and just what I was hoping for. The article itself has something of a history, as you probably appreciate, and what we have here is a restoration from 2018 which I've amended. The content had been heavily reduced prior to the aborted merger, possibly because of doubts about the sources. My contacts in the publishing world have access to the source books and they've confirmed everything verifies. That said, I agree with you that more work is needed on the prose, lead and structure. I'll add the image you've found and see if I can find any more, though it's unlikely there'll be much out there given the date and subject.
The 2018 version originally had a hugely elaborate table which I converted into standard wikitable, although I still had doubts as to whether it was the best thing for the article. I wondered about converting it into prose. I do think you're right that it could be too much for some readers.
Please leave it with me a few days. I've been very busy of late but things have settled now and I should be able to come back soon. I'll answer all your points individually so I don't miss any.
Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 12:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello again, Guettarda. I've managed to make plenty of time for this and a lot of changes have been done. The table has gone and I think it's much better without it, especially with images in there. When you have time, could you please look at it again and let me have more feedback. Thanks again for your help which has been really useful. All the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)