Talk:Somerset County Cricket Club in 1885/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead is a little too short to adequately summarise the article.

I struggle to work out what more to put: as they only played six matches, I don't know what else to include? Harrias ^talk 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aftermath was one obvious thing missing. I added a short paragraph to cover it, but please feel free to tweak or remove as you see fit. Malleus Fatuorum 15:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"The county failed to live up to this ...". It's not at all clear what "this" is referring to here.

Clarified by repeating "optimism" Harrias ^talk 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Twice between 1882 and 1884 Somerset fielded as their opponents scored over 500 runs in an innings against them ...". Isn't it self-evident that Somerset must have been fielding if their opponents scored all those runs in a single innings?

Removed "fielded as their" and changed to "..Somerset's opponents scored over 500 runs.." Harrias ^talk 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squad

As all the players were English, is it really necessary to have a nationality column in the table?

Removed. Harrias ^talk 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could the table not include the number of appearances each player made during the season?

I suppose it could; I'll look at adding this later. Harrias ^talk 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the players have a dagger mark against their names in the squad table. What does that indicate?

Added a key to explain this, and also added appearances as requested above. Harrias ^talk 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County cricket

"Although batting was the strongest aspect of Somerset's, they were still lacking ...". There's obviously a word missing after "Somerset's".

It's a strange sentence overall, I'll try and work out how it should sound! Harrias ^talk 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added "play" after "Somerset's", but I'd still prefer to reword it somehow, too tired to work it out at the moment, and not going to have much time on WP for the next week or so: feel free to try something yourself! Harrias ^talk 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd try if I was sure what it was trying to say. The sentence now reads: "Although batting was the strongest aspect of Somerset's play, they were still lacking". To what is "they" in the second clause referring? Somerset's batsmen or the team in general? Lacking what in comparison to what? Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said I was tired! Okay, reading it, what I think I was trying to say was effectively: "Somerset were better at batting than bowling, but even that wasn't great." I'm really not in much of a state to write at the moment though: I'll try and take a look at this tomorrow if I've got a chance. Harrias ^talk 21:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, the review's on hold for another week or so anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, have had a shower and a cup of tea; a word with the missus, and come up with: "Although batting was the stronger aspect of Somerset's play, the club lacked the depth demonstrated by other county teams." Does that make more sense? (I can't see how it could make any less, but the point is; does it make enough?! Harrias ^talk 22:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do for me, job done. Your missus is obviously a very wise lady. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Somerset's bowlers restricted the visitors to 175 runs, in which Bastard took a career-best eight wickets in the innings ...". The "in which" clearly isn't right there.

Changed to "..in the first innings, during which Bastard.." Harrias ^talk 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sainsbury had utilised one less bowler than against Gloucestershire in his search for wickets ...". So presumably Sainsbury was the captain? I don't think we've said that anywhere have we?

We've said it in the lead and the squad section: which is where I'd expect to find it. Harrias ^talk 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's a little confusing is that "Captain Edward Sainsbury" is mentioned in the previous paragraph. I'd forgotten the mention of Sainsbury as team captain when I came across that and assumed that "Captain" was his military rank. Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sainsbury bowled eight different players in an effort to take wickets ...". He didn't bowl the players.

Changed to "Sainsbury tried eight different bowlers in an effort.." Harrias ^talk 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

"Somerset were stripped of their first-class status for each of three reasons". What does "for each of" mean here? Could we not just say "three reasons"?

Removed "each of". Harrias ^talk 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The licence claimed for File:HTHewett1892.jpg "life of the author plus 100 years" can't possibly be right, as the author doesn't appear to be known. If, for instance, the author was 20 years old when the image was produced and lived for another 50 years, then it wouldn't be in the public domain under those terms until 2040. As it was published before 1923, probably {{PD-US}} would be more appropriate, or {{PD-UK}}.

Changed to {{PD-UK}}. Harrias ^talk 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it; the review is now on hold to allow time for these issues to be addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.