Talk:1889–90 Currie Cup/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 16:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "The batsmen then shared a partnership of 40 runs, but upon the loss of their fifth wicket, they suffered a collapse, and were eventually bowled out for 98 runs": needs to be rephrased; "they" currently refers to the batsmen who shared a partnership of 40 runs, but it ought to refer to the team.
 * I've tweaked this a bit, bit I might need to rewrite it completely, what do you think? Harrias talk 21:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a go at it -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "was significantly the best": suggest "was substantially the best".
 * Done. Harrias talk 21:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a suitable link for "timeless match"?
 * I've added a link to a glossary article, how's that? Harrias talk 21:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Any chance of a picture of the cup?
 * There are a few pictures of it around, I can't find anything with an appropriate license unfortunately. Harrias talk 21:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The scorecard I looked at doesn't give the sequence of dismissals, just the fall of wickets. Are you deducing which batsmen were dismissed for each wicket by logic, or do you have a specific source?  I'm assuming your text description is essentially drawn from the scorecards, rather than from a narrative.
 * The description is simply drawn from the scorecards as you surmise. I have indeed used logic to work out which batsman was dismissed at each stage. If this is too WP:OR-y, then I would have no problem with a fail based upon that: I could find very few sources, so I drew what I could from them. Harrias talk 21:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

-- That's everything I can see. The existing image is fine; the sources look good. Can't really check for close paraphrasing as I don't have the source from which much of the text appears to have been drawn. I'll place this on hold. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good and I'm going to go ahead and pass this. Re the scorecard logic: I think it's OK, but it wouldn't hurt to document that you did that on the talk page.  It's one of those exceedingly rare situations where a logical deduction can be made which means that a citation isn't required.  However, as I recall from trying to determine who was out when by looking at scorecards in decades past, there are cases where the situation is ambiguous.  I think if you were to take this to FAC you would have to be explicit on the talk page about what you can deduce and how.   For now, it's up to you what you add to the talk page, but if you add anything I would at a minimum list the things you're sure of -- e.g. the N wickets for which you know what happened, and the 44 - N where you can't be sure. Anyway, this is GA now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)