User talk:Harrias/Archive 13

Peer Review
Hi, I had listed this article for peer review. Your suggestions are most welcome. &mdash; Commander (Ping me) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

FIRST CLASS
Prior to 1947 the best list is the ACS guide which can still be obtained from them in Cardiff. There was no definition and there are several anomalies - sometimes caused by the unavailability of overseas scores before 1940 which caused Wisden to miss out matches. Also before 1940, Wisden rated some matches such as Brazil-Argentina as f-c then suddenley didn't. The ACS book is the best guide. Post 1947 it was for the homer board to decide. TMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.82.253 (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK
Hey Harrias, stumbled onto your list at DYK, reviewed it, gave it the thumbs up. One thing I did notice (because I'm sure this is FLC-bound!) is that you have four dab links: Rushell, Ellesmere, Carlisle and Philadelphia Quakers. Probably best to sort them out when you get a moment. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Harry Lee
I can chip in at the A class review if you like, but I'm not too sure I can add anything that I have not already said, and I cannot really assess the military side, which I believe was your intention. I can chime in with a support at the end if that helps, as it certainly meets the criteria, but is there anything more constructive I could do? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport
Hello if women's sports fascinate you: WikiProject Women's sport and Portal:Women's sport, --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève  (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for List of National Hockey League players from the United Kingdom
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination
Hi, just letting you know that I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Ice hockey in the United Kingdom and there is a problem with an unsourced claim. Cheers, Big  Dom  16:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:First-class teams in Zimbabwean domestic cricket
Template:First-class teams in Zimbabwean domestic cricket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ice hockey in the United Kingdom
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Oxford Canadians
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox cricketer
Refer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_cricketer#Women.27s_cricket_team_link_to_be_corrected

Issue resolved. Thank you  Harrias  for speedy correction. - -- Ninney (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

List of ICC Cricket World Cup finals
Hey Harrias, thanks for all your comments at the subject FLC. I believe we've addressed the issues you've raised, I'm sure you're busy, but this is just a polite nudge to say cheers and look forward to seeing your responses to our attempts to resolve the comments you made. Ta! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

List of india ODI cricketers
I am looking forward to your suggestions. whenever you have some time please take a look at the article.--Vyom25 (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at rewritten prose.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

First-class status: late reply
Hi Harrias. This is about your question to me way back on 17 December. Sorry, but I've been working abroad for several weeks including Christmas and haven't had any time for being online. I'm just catching up with WP today.

However, I think I can offer an answer re citations if you look at Variations in first-class cricket statistics. The sources quoted there from the ACS, Harry Altham and Simon Rae are as good as any. Simon Rae discusses the problems of WG's first-class matches in some detail and is, I think, the best source to quote here. I hope this helps if you haven't already found the answers elsewheere but let me know if I can be of more use. All the best. Jack | talk page 13:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of India Twenty20 International cricketers/archive1
Hi, can you comment on this FLC. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  17:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Botham
Thanks for the kind words. I think Botham would is a great one to work on and probably very interesting. I suspect your main problem may be an independent overview of his career: a lot of the info on Botham comes from either the man himself or from starry-eyed "wasn't he wonderful!" types. To be honest, I'm not a fan of ITB; I dislike him as a commentator and consider him over-rated as a player, although he was very, very good until about 1982. But that's just my view, and I may be biased because he wasn't born in God's-Own-County! On the matter of length, it is probably better to get it all down and then cut back later, and as you say, I think a 1981 article definitely has legs if you need to go down that route. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate the bloody things and would cheerfully get rid of the lot. I've never used one and something like the "Test record" one is just ... well, silly. Also, I'm not sure they are necessary for something like the England captaincy; I'm about to zap the ones in Percy Chapman as they are misleading as he only captained off and on. My view is get rid of them if they are confusing; and even if they aren't! I doubt many people would notice they were gone. Realistically, I suppose the captaincy ones could remain for Botham, but the "achievements" ones are frankly insane. And "A Question of Sport"...? And "The World Cup"? Good grief. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Kapil Dev
Hi, is there a free image available for him? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I can find. Your best bet is having a look around on flickr, and asking if any of the uploaders there would be willing to release their image on a CC-BY-2.0 license, as detailed on this page at the Commons: Commons:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change. This is what I recently did successfully to get the lead image for the Ian Botham article, which I am working on expanding in my sandbox. If you don't make any headway in the next few weeks, ask me again, and I'll see if I can sort anything out for you!  Harrias  talk 21:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Omari Banks
Harrias, I believe that you flagged a potential conflict on my posts on the Omari Banks page. Please let me know what your specific concerns are. I believe everything cited by me clearly identified the source. I didn't delete anything negative on there so I'm not sure what your concern is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaidebanks (talk • contribs) 12:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)