Talk:George Patterson (cricketer)

GA assessment
Working on it.... 4u1e 17:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Images: PASS One image only, but more are not required and copyright looks fine. 4u1e 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stable: PASS Hardly any edits at all in the last few weeks. 4u1e 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutrality: PASS Seems a neutral account. A fuller description of in what way 'Patterson also performed poorly' in the Warwickshire match would be useful in supporting that claim, the referenced results don't mean much to me! 4u1e 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Broad coverage: FAIL There's very little here on the man himself. It's a short article anyway, but much of it is taken up with an account of the 1897 tour, in which Patterson seems to have played little role (going by the article!) I know coverage doesn't have to be comprehensive for GA, but things that I don't know after reading the article include:
 * His personal life, how did he make his living (were there professional cricket players at the time?) Did he marry, have children?
 * American cricket strikes me (as an Englishman) as a novel thing. Was this an usual hobby/career for someone to take up in the States? What sort of sporting context should we see him in?
 * I get no real sense of what the man was like. Any quotes that can be given that illustrate his personality?
 * Only two international tours, 8 years apart? If so, is there more to be said about why they occurred when they did? If not, what were the other ones?
 * Any material on why the MCC match was his last first-class appearance? He was only 29 at the time.
 * This may all be down to my ignorance about cricket, but I'm probably more knowledgeable than most general readers from non-test nations and I don't get much of a feel for the man from the article. 4u1e 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Verifiable: PASS Seems to be. I'll have to take the cricinfo links on trust, since I'm not registered, but I don't see that as any more of a problem than hardcopy refs which I also woulsn't be able to check against. 4u1e 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well written: WEAK FAIL Fine for the most part, but the structure threw me in a few places:
 * The mention that he started playing first class cricket at the age of 16 reads a bit strange coming at the end of the lead, because it's out of chronological order - could it be worked in earlier? Also there shouldn't be 'new' information in the lead, can it also be worked into the main article?
 * Who are the Philadelphians - can you at least expand to give some context for the novice reader without clicking on the link (in the same sense that, being a writer of motorsport articles, I would introduce 'Williams Formula One racing team' rather than plain 'Williams')?
 * What does 'batted in good style' mean?
 * Can you explain what the 'Gentlemen of Hampshire' are? I think I can guess, but I'm in a better position than many to do so!
 * It feels to me that there is too large a gap between the statement that the 1897 tour was 'ambitious' and what I take to be the explanation of this, that the side played all the top class county sides. Can the reasons for the tour being ambitious be made clearer up front?
 * Who is 'John Barton King' and why is he mentioned in this article about Patterson? I deliberately haven't read his linked article, on the basis that if King is important in relation to Patterson (rival? protegé?) it should be explained in this article and if he is not, then he probably shouldn't be mentioned.
 * Overall, what I'm getting at is that I don't feel there's enough here for readers new to the topic to really understand what's going on without reading a lot of other articles.


 * Overall: FAIL, mainly on breadth, but some work on making the article clearer for newbies needed too. Hope that was helpful, and please contact me if any of my witterings have been unclear. I'll put on hold. Cheers. 4u1e 18:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy to leave this for up to 7 days, btw. Cheers. 4u1e 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your thorough review. Unfortunately, the next couple weeks will not be good for me to address your very relevant concerns. It would probably be best to fail the GAC for now. In a month or so, I can address the problems and relist. Thanks again.-- Eva  b  d  22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, will fail for now, but I imagine that when time allows you will be able to get to to GA level without too much difficulty. Cheers. 4u1e 08:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)