Talk:Christ Church Ground

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

clarity and other uses[edit]

the section on history refers to two different grounds. the first was, it says, "by the White House public house." the second was on land "along the Iffley Road." there then follow two sentences that start "The ground," with no attempt made to distinguish which of these two grounds are being referred to. did they abandon the first and move completely to the second. did they have two grounds for any period of time. were either of these grounds used for things other than cricket? this whole section could do with a lot more detail and more clarity.

for example, the first Oxford and Cambridge athletics match was held on the Christ Church College cricket ground in March 1864. it was one of the most important social events of the summer, over five thousand spectators came from London and Cambridge, and thousands more local inhabitants lined the ground to watch it for free. the railways laid on special trains to accommodate them, there was a band playing, and it was all widely reported in the press. reading this article you wouldn't know it had even happened. it might at the very least be worth mentioning which of these two grounds that was. Cottonshirtτ 06:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"John Peel, who studied at Oxford and was captain of the Christ Church Cricket Club, was instrumental in the establishment of the first cricket ground which Christ Church possessed.[1] It was located not far from the Old White House public house and was on the right-hand side of the nearby Cherwell Valley line when heading toward London.[2] By the 1850s, Christ Church had acquired land along the Iffley Road, where they established the present day Christ Church Ground."
I think this makes it pretty obvious that after 1850, we are talking about the present ground. I'm not sure how anyone could get the two confused having read that. StickyWicket (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article even worth keeping? Do any other Oxford College Sports Grounds have an article? I think it should be merged and redirected to the College article. --Bduke (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke:. So an article, referenced with 37 sources from authoritative sources, detailing a historically important first-class cricket ground should just be redirected? Right, we'll redirect Lord's to London and Mote Park to Maidstone with your odd logic. StickyWicket (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see that 200 first class marches were held at Mote Park, but only 27 at the Christ Church ground. The number of sources does not give a measure of notability. --Bduke (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Christ Church Ground/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Desertarun (talk · contribs) 19:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one. Will read over and post initial comments as soon as practical. Desertarun (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the lead: Owing to the University Parks being on public land where an admission charge could not be levied, the privately owned Christ Church Ground was the preferred venue in Oxford for matches where a gated admission was to be levied on spectators, typically in matches between Oxford University and a touring international team. I don't really understand this, it looks contradictory, can it be clarified? Or moved out of the lead? (because it looks like a detail for the body and not necessarily a summary for the lead).
    • @Dersetarun: I have rewritten the lead, making it less wishy washy and introducing some more information. I do think it is important to note in the lead its importance as a venue where an attendance charge could be levied. However, I have reduced this to read "Privately owned, it was the preferred venue in Oxford for matches where a gated admission was to be levied on spectators, typically in matches between Oxford University and a touring international team". Is that any better? StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Host ground for touring section: Subsequent matches with admission on the gate were preferred to be played at the Christ Church Ground, with Oxford University first playing the touring Australians there in 1882 on a cloudy May day, though it was recorded that the attendance was poor. This read a bit clumsy, can it be altered?
  • From the Host ground for touring section: In 1897, the ground played host to a touring besides the Australians for the first time, when the Gentlemen of Philadelphia played against Oxford University. Needs fixing.
  • From the Host ground for touring section: gated first-class matches at the ground continued unabated and included the first visit of the Indians to Oxford. "Indians" is too informal.
    • @Desertarun: Whilst still trying to adhere to the nomenclature mentioned below, I have changed the wording to read "the first visit of the Indian tourists to Oxford, as part of their inaugural tour of England in 1911" (with Indian Test status not coming until 1931, they were referred to throughout the tour as "the Indians"). StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the Host ground for touring section: Although the First World War bought an end to first-class cricket between 1914 and 1919. Could it say suspended, halted or similar instead of brought to an end?
  • From the Host ground for touring section: The 1950s saw first visits to the ground by both the touring West Indians in 1950, and the touring South Africans in 1955. Prefer formal name for the West Indian and South African national teams.
    • @Desertarun: I'm guessing to mean West Indians → West Indies? The typical nomenclature for tour matches is to refer to the team either as "the touring Indians" or, where it's not possible to add "ians" to the name, to call the touring team "Ireland XI". I think formal names are only used when the team is playing another international team on the tour, i.e. in a Test match etc. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, we'll set that one aside. So nothing else to do with this one. Desertarun (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything meaningful to say about the home club side? (Christ Church Cricket Club).
    • @Desertarun: Ideally I'd like to reference this, but the Christ Church Cricket Club is akin to some secret society! They don't appear to have a website, and independent coverage (especially recent) seems non-existent. Only scorecards from CricketArchive allude to the fact Christ Church Cricket Club play there! StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did think there wasn't going to be much to say, but it would have been nice to include something. Desertarun (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph three of the Host ground for touring section is quite long and could be split.
  • The pavilion is pictured but nothing seems to be said about it in the text. Any reason for this?
    • @Desertarun: I did search high and low for information about the pavilion, but could not find all that much. It looks quite new to my eye, so had a look for articles about it being built, but the only thing I found was on an eletricians website about rewiring it! I will have another look. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be nice to have something to say, but if there isn't anything so be it, that's not a battier to GA status. Desertarun (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the section headers be changed? They don't feel intuitive. For example one reads "Host ground for touring sides" and the one after reads "Later use" - but there are touring sides in the later use section too.
    • @Desertarun: I have changed the later section heading to read "Venue for one-day cricket" and have moved the first paragraph into the previous section. I'm not entirely happy with the title header, doesn't seem overly imaginative, but does cover the section. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written[edit]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:

  • Addressed above.

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

  • Addressed above.

Verifiable with no original research[edit]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

  • Look fine.

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

  • All in place.

(c) it contains no original research:

  • None detected by my read through.

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism:

  • Earwig says no violations likely.


Broad in its coverage[edit]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

  • The coverage is broad, this is a provincial ground and covers everything that can be said.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

  • Stays focussed throughout.

Neutral[edit]

  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  • Looks fine. Not a controversial topic.


Stable[edit]

  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  • Its stable. Not a controversial topic.


Illustrated[edit]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

  • Three pics, 2 are 4.0 and one is public domain.


(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

  • They're relevant and interesting.


Overall[edit]

  1. Well-written
  2. Verifiable with no original research
  3. Broad in its coverage
  4. Neutral
  5. Stable
  6. Illustrated
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christ_Church_Ground&oldid=1206783093"