Wikipedia:Peer review/Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851/archive1

Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851

I've listed this article for peer review because the same was suggested during the 2nd FA nomination. I have addressed the main issues brought out during the nomination, and am now requesting a peer review for improvement of the article to FA standards. Thank you. Thanks, Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of this and will be leaving some comments in a few days. Please forgive me, I leave Thursday on a trip and am trying to get some research in while I have access to the books. I've given it a read-through, though. Let me start you by saying this: I think you are mistaken in covering this as a cricket match, primarily, as that leads to dull reading, like a cricket match report. The fact that it was played, the first significant intercolonial match, is far more important than how many LBWs there were. The lede should focus on this as a historical event. Right now you have to dig through the lede to figure out why it is important this match was played. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Will do that. Thanks and looking forward to working on this with your suggestions. Thanks so much. Lourdes 16:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I've done some reworking on the talk page of this review. Do tell me if I'm on the right lines. Thanks. Lourdes 05:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

I think Wehwalt is spot on here, we need to make much more about why this match was a big deal. I'm not convinced that the revised lead on the talk page does that either. The lead needs to include more about the background to the match. A good model, I think, would be 1877 Wimbledon Championship which is about the first Wimbledon, and might give some pointers for the first Australian first-class game. A few other points, but I will do a full review later as well:

• In the background section, we need much more detail. I think we need to go more into general cricket in Australia, even how it got there. And I'd have much more about the growth of cricket in Tasmania and Victoria.
• How "big" was cricket in these days? How many watched? How many played? How big were the names? How did it compare to cricket in England, for example?
• It is worth remembering that first-class cricket did not arise as a concept for a long, long time after this game, and we need more about how it was viewed at the time. If possible, we could also say when it was retrospectively made first-class, and why? What made it so special?
• Most of the sources are online. Are there any details in printed sources, such as histories of Australian cricket? To reach FA standard, we need to be certain that we have looked at everything important: the FA criteria state "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I think we might need to be a bit more robust here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I shall work on these points in the coming days. Let me ping you once I've driven through these changes. Thanks so much . Lourdes 12:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping me as well once Sarastro is done, and I'll go at it as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I shall do that. Thanks. Lourdes 01:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure. One quick point, I'd try to take "Aftermath" to try to show the development of Australian cricket reaching the "maturity" of the first competitions against England, in 1877 as I recall. Trying to show they were on the same road. Intercolonial competition yields eventual intercolonial team, take on England, and certainly full cricket maturity at that point.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Any progress on this one? I have a bit of time over the next few days. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: hi. Was busy on some gigs (I have to tour in my course of work) and logged on only now after a taxing schedule. I would get into this in another week. Thanks for leaving the note. Lourdes 01:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)