User talk:Dar2020

Graeme Hick
Hello,

I've removed your additions to the Graeme Hick article for now. Not because there isn't some very good material in there - there is - but because considerable parts of it seem to contain original research and personal opinion, neither of which are appropriate for a Wikipedia article. There also isn't really any need for a list of all those fifties and centuries, so I've removed those as well.

I'll be mentioning what I've done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, and so other editors (including you, should you so wish) will be able to give their views as to whether my actions were appropriate. I see you're a new editor, so please don't take this as meaning we don't value your contributions: we just need them to be made in an encyclopedic manner, rather than in terms of personal opinion. Loganberry (Talk) 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response on the Talk:Graeme Hick page. I've answered you in more detail there, but I hope you're now reassured that the considerable amount of useful information you contributed will still be drawn upon for the article, rather than being thrown into the Wikipedia equivalent of an oubliette! Loganberry (Talk) 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hick article
You might be interested in seeing how the draft stands at the moment: you can see it at User:Loganberry/Sandbox. (Ignore the bit right at the bottom, beneath the references; that's been deliberately delinked until the article is finished.) It's not finished yet, and I'm sure you'll be able to pick out one or two places where there are omissions still, but I think it's already a major improvement on what went before. Oh, and you'll be pleased to note that I found Warne's book in the local library!

NB: Since this is just a Sandbox article, it's probably best that any comments you might have dealing specifically with this version of the draft go on my User talk page, since they won't be of general interest. I look forward to hearing what you think! (General comments dealing with improvement of the Hick article, including any continuation of our existing dialogue there, can of course continue to be made at Talk:Graeme Hick.) Loganberry (Talk) 03:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Thank you for looking over my draft, and I'm pleased you approve of its tone. Thanks too for correcting those mistakes; very useful, and it also helped me to find another one - of course Hick's average of 25 against Zimbabwe wasn't his worst ODI series, since he'd just come off the South African series where he averaged 12.40! I hope that the article will be ready to publish in the next couple of weeks; I think a bit of proof-reading and some tidying is really all that's no required. Loganberry (Talk) 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your further input; useful as ever. I take your point about Hick's ODI displays during the 2000 season, and it's probably the case that I was influenced by my earlier mistake in calling that his worst ODI series - in fact, of course, both the previous SA series and his 1997-98 performance in the West Indies (ave 19.40) were considerably worse in statistical terms. On reflection, I do agree that I've been a bit harsh on him here: his scores were 50, 12, 23*, 0, 0 and 41, and in the first and last of those innings he shared in century partnerships. I've changed the wording to "a very mixed summer", which feels fairer. Loganberry (Talk) 23:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the additional comments; I've been away for a few days or I'd have replied more promptly. Good point about the ICC Test ratings peaking at the time of the 141, and I may very well add that in. Not so sure about the Langer quote: we already have quite a few positive comments from various people and there's a limit to how many can be fitted in. I'll have to give that one more thought. Loganberry (Talk) 12:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Done!
The Graeme Hick article is now up! Naturally more tweaks could always be made, but there comes a point at which it's best to just get on with things, and I think that point has now been reached. Of course I have no idea how the article will be edited from now on, but whatever happens to it I'm reasonably confident that it will remain much better than its predecessor. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your help and encouragement on this article: it's made editing it a lot more enjoyable! Loganberry (Talk) 00:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you've noted the compliment from RobertG on my user talk page; "well sourced, excellently laid out and thorough" is a nice thing to see, and you should take a considerable share of the credit for that! It would be wonderful to see it reach featured status someday, although as pointed out there, that can't happen without a photo and there don't seem to be any about that we can use. Loganberry (Talk) 13:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)