Talk:Peter (Lord's cat)

Photo

The article claims there are no photos but a quick search turned up this: [1]. Yomangani^talk 12:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/266571.html : "Surprisingly no pictures are known to exist of Peter, although his successor, Sinbad, was snapped during a Southern Schools v The Rest match in 1963." The same photo appears here and is subtitled "Sinbad - not Peter - wanders on the Lord's outfield" Tintin (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Righto (all cats look the same to me). Yomangani^talk 12:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about this, which I've expanded in a footnote. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality = start?

Badbilltucker rated this article "start" quality. It's very short, but on the other hand, I don't know of anything to add. I've started a discussion about this at /Comments, and I'd welcome feedback. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just of the top of my head - How did he come to be at Lord's Ground, how did he die, who was his owner, a discription (tabby/ginger/black & white, etc), why was he so honoured with an obituary, was there anything special he did during matches (allowed to walk the ground, slept someplace special, etc)? The main thing the article omits is any sense of what was so special about the cat that warranted his inclusion in Wisden. -- 15:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Peter (Lord's cat)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

== Rating == I don't know how to rate this article on the quality scale. Badbilltucker rated it start class, presumably because it's very short. But I also don't know of what else there is to be said. What's one supposed to do with an article which is very short and also close to comprehensive? Or am I wrong about there being nothing else to add? Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC) == Importance == Importance is certainly Low though, because it essentially documents one piece of trivia. Notable trivia, but still trivia. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ==Assessment== Assessment is generally based on how thorough the article is, and how much depth is gone into. The article does cover all of the basic data available and required on the subject, so it isn't a stub. However, I do get the impression that there is probably more data which could be added, like comments from the people at Lord's about the animal which might be written down somewhere, and those would probably be required for it to reach good article or feature article status. That leaves only Start and B. Here, purely subjectively, I thought Start, primarily because the length is closer to most Start articles than B articles. These are however simply subjective judgements, so don't take them too seriously. Also, I know of at least one article, about Pope Soter, which contains literally everything known about him that is still called a stub, because so little is known. I guess we're all just hoping someone finds out something about him soon there. Badbilltucker 14:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for that, Bill. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 02:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)