User talk:Sarastro1/Archive 3

Butch Wensloff
I believe I've now answered all your concerns. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Favor
Hey. By chance, would you be able to do a quick prose/jargon review on Bill Veeck? I'm working on the review but since I'm a baseball fan, I'd probably miss a lot of the issues you would catch. If you don't have time/desire to then that's fine, don't worry about it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Favor - Evanna Lynch PR
You recently did a peer review on Evanna Lynch. I have made some minor changes to the article since I've resolved your comments. I was wondering if you could review these new changes, which I've specified at the bottom of the review. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd very much appreciate that. I'll put it up at FAC after your look at it. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for checking it over. I'll take a look at a some FACs before I nominate it. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bodyline
Lifted the background on Jardine added togday off your article  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  08:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lindwall up at FAC  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  09:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We need something new up at FAC ;)  Aaroncrick  TALK 09:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Was waiting :) Looks good at a glance; well done.  Aaroncrick  TALK 22:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Finished the review; will support after my queries are addressed.  Aaroncrick  TALK 23:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviewed a part of it. Done with Lindwall. Surprised at the speed of Lindwall, usually takes three weeks for 3  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  08:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You should get three supports soon YM, so will it get archived?  Aaroncrick  TALK 14:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So you got the notes section working. Beat me to it.  Aaroncrick  TALK 12:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alfred Pullin
The article Alfred Pullin you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Alfred Pullin for things which need to be addressed. Brad78 (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Smashing. It's a nice piece of work. I've passed it and moved it over to the journalism section. Brad78 (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Jardine, Championship
I can still fail it you know!! Heh, no, personally my money is on Yorkshire. They get to prepare their own pitch, and are facing Kent. Although I wouldn't put it passed Lancs to throw the game to prevent Yorkshire winning. Either way, I think Somerset are unlikely to take the title, but here's hoping!  Harrias  talk 22:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'll pass the GA in the morning, when I might be sober enough!  Harrias  talk 22:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Juwan Howard
It is not clear what you feel is resolved. Can you strike the issues that you feel are resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you comment at Peer review/Juwan Howard/archive2 about the issue you raised about the sneakers. Other comments would be welcome too, especially regarding its readiness for another FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Geoff Smith GA review
Thanks very much for taking the time to review Geoff Smith (footballer). Hopefully I've addressed all your points. I've either amended the article, of left an explanation or in two places a question on the review page. Brad78 (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed those two bits as you suggested. Brad78 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the review. Brad78 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Krichell
As a non-baseballer can you make the flow of the prose better with that article. I really apprechiate it. Thanks Secret account 01:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit, you removed Hank Borowy from the list of signings btw Secret account 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It failed, but I would add more information once I take a trip to the Baseball Hall of Fame in October. I'm working at Reggie Jackson right now, I'll give it to you when you finish. I'll review your FAC now. Thanks Secret account 20:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind it got promoted, I was going to support as I took a quick glance the other day and didn't see anything wrong, congrats. Secret account 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The leak
There are more one off snippets throughout the book about Fingo and Braddles hating each others' guts. which is good background, and then the endless battle and sniping for the next 50 years, and then Braddle pipin g up again after Fingo diedi  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Somerset 2009
It's still too raw to think about! Was up at the CB40 final; good game, but we seem to play well all season and then throw things away in finals. Although admittedly, not as impressively as creating those figures for Tredwell! We'd have had a chance but for Mark Turner. Never mind, there's always next season.  Harrias  talk 07:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  08:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Think I've resolved most of the issues at the review, let me know what you think. Might take this on to FA shortly: I expect it'll get ripped to shreds, but it'll give me an idea of what to expect once I get Sammy Woods up to that standard!  Harrias  talk  16:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I always mean to look at more FA stuff, but to be honest some of the reviews there are so picky that I feel I would go look, see nothing wrong, support it, and then three other editors come along and tear holes in an article, somewhat invalidating my support! Maybe I'll venture back now I've got a few GAs under my belt.  Harrias  talk  22:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you know content stuff and you can provoke article improvement there, as non-topic ppl tend to just look for formatting and ce. Cricket articles have been smooth sailing mostly, although slow  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnesy up. Basically, it's impossible for a sports art to pass until Giants is through, as it's hard to get 3 non-Giants to turn up :(  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * put Barnes up. Need to get Hele's book again for the stuff I chucked in last yr and forgot about  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fingo
All delievered  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  08:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Abe Waddington
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Norman Yardley
The article Norman Yardley you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Norman Yardley for things which need to be addressed. Brad78 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work. I've passed it and left some suggestions if you want to push on to FA. Brad78 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Adelaide leak
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnes
Done  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  06:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bating charts for Jardine and your list
Just noticed Dougie was a bit bare, so made one. I can email you the template for it. I had to rediscover how to build the graph. The new excel and its more rigid layout is really annoying; I hadn't done a new graph for 18 months and my old machine with the old excel doesn't work at the moment  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted the instructions on WT:CRIC on the linked subpage. You could just do the exact same thing for M Jardine's FC etc  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, every Vietnamese history one in the last 2 years has gone the full 4 weeks :|  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  03:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Piers Gaveston
I've finally made it through your review, and was able to cover most of it. Please have a look when you get the time. Lampman (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Interesting about Ormrod, I've never seen him live myself. He should really have an article though. Lampman (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Hobbs
Hi Sarastro. I am aware of that facility in CA but have never used it much myself as I like to see a whole scorecard to understand the context of an innings in terms of the match. However, it is a useful addition to the statistics section which is already there so I've included a paragraph for guidance of anyone who would like to see it.

I accept that KB is right about the ducks but unless he cites his source, we cannot use it. It is not in the Jerry Lodge book as part of the dismissals summary, whatever he might say, unless it is hidden away on another page altogether and I've missed it. But if I have missed it, we need him to provide the precise page number. What more can I do than ask him to do that? Lodge simply confirms the number and percentage of times that Hobbs scored 0 and he doesn't exclude not outs, although I believe Hobbs never did score 0*.

As for running screaming to WT:CRIC about "personal fiefdoms", I suppose you just have to laugh, really. Having said that, I am getting sick and tired of him following me around and the last straw was when he appeared in a discussion about a geographical article just because I was involved. Okay, he has a right to have his say there, but he would not have gone anywhere near that article if he hadn't seen it on my contributions page.

I'm afraid that, like JH, I'm not keen on the FA/GA processes and don't really want to get involved. I'd be perfectly happy if you or anyone else wants to nominate an article I've worked on and I will certainly assist with any reasonable questions arising. I regard Sutcliffe as finished now, although it can always be improved. W G Grace has unsurprisingly become a huge article but I would say it is nowhere near complete and will easily top 200k if we ever do get it into what we think is a finished state.

Anyway, I enjoy reading your work and, if I haven't said so before, I think you did a marvellous job with Wilfred. I remember trying to put some structure into that before you joined the site and despairing of it (I even put something on the talk page to say what a poor article it was), but you have transformed it and it's become one of the very best cricket biographies. Well done. Jack | talk page 15:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

thi
Done thanks. Bosie came out rather quickly??  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stuck another military politics article up  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  06:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Peter Trombino/GA1
I have responded to your concerns at Talk:Peter Trombino/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Newton
Hey, thanks for your comments, I've now responded to them. Glad to see Bosanquet at GA, I might review him soon if noone beats me to it, I've really enjoyed reading the article! (I know there are others well ahead of it, but it has really interested me, so it'd be fun to get my teeth into.) Got another review to get out the way first though. I'm finding 1890–1910 a really interesting time in cricket, especially for Somerset (and a few damned good games between them and Yorkshire too!)  Harrias  talk 21:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got a couple of books covering cricketers of that time if you ever want me to glance at them for some info for you; Cricketers of my times by AA Thomson and Cricket prints by RC Robertson-Glasgow. Got a fair few others, but they mostly cover Somerset: the £1 a book deal at Book Barn swelled my shelves somewhat!  Harrias  talk  09:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer)
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And can I add a "well done" on the Bosanquet article. I have a vague memory that there was a biography of Bosie a while back which would be useful if you had plans to extend the article but sadly can't remember much more. --Roisterer (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dec 64 coup
Done, thanks again  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  08:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee, another slow time on FAC :(  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, core articles can be like that, thus Miller never finisheh  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, despite what PD-Australia says, it backdates to Jan 1 1946 due to a free trade agreement being backdated to 1996, so no Yardley :(  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  04:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Headley
Ah, had no idea you'd be interested in him! Find West Indian cricketers fascinating.  Aaroncrick  TALK 00:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks very good :) Shall read through and ce once done.  Aaroncrick  TALK 07:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the Headley article: I cleaned up the lead image.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 23:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks to be done - fab!  Aaroncrick  TALK 09:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up image for Hutton too: File:Hutton 1947.jpg  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 21:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah well; the copyright status for images is a confusing world!  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 21:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abe Waddington
The article Abe Waddington you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Abe Waddington for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Brad78 (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Joe Colbeck
Thanks very much for the review of Joe Colbeck. I think I've caught everything or left an explanation on the review page. Brad78 (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the review. And thanks for the pass. Brad78 (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Monk McDonald
OK. I think I have finally gotten around to correcting all of the suggested changes on the Monk McDonald article. Let me know if I need to do anything further. Remember (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yardley
Got a little bit in the History of the OUCC about his performances in the university matches, but to be honest it's not overly deep stuff! In 1937: "More than a month before the University match Singleton had said that only Yardley and Gibbon the Cambridge side were to be feared. Events proved his a true prophet." A few more details about his performances in the matches, I'll scan the pages and email you them if you think they'd be useful to you, but it doesn't really add anything about his character. Other than that I suspect he is a little too recent for most of my collection, but I'll have a look through for you. Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 23:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, seems to be a bit in AA Thomson's Cricketers of my times. If you email me with your address, I'll reply with a scan of the pages tomorrow for you?  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 23:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wilton St Hill
Can you please add a reference to "a horrible, a disastrous, an incredible failure" as well. It is straight from Beyond a boundary but I don't have the book to add the specifics. Tintin 03:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Sutcliffe
Hi Sarastro. I've decided to nominate this for FA, something I've steered clear of before but I think the article should be featured if enough people think it's good enough. Do you mind if I refer to you should any questions about procedure arise? All the best. Jack | talk page 16:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I decided to be WP:BOLD and go for it. Do you always use peer review yourself and do you think it is a worthwhile step apart from the views of FA reviewers?  Jack | talk page 16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised there are few takers for reviewing sports articles, though I don't suppose too many Americans would fancy a cricket biography. What sort of articles are popular in this respect?  Jack | talk page 17:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah well. If the interest isn't there then it could be a long wait.  Still, it will be interesting to get some feedback.  Thanks again.  Jack | talk page 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hughes
Many thanks for the review. Sorry I haven't got to any of it at this stage but I was away from home for a while and access to the internet was limited. I will start making my way through it shortly. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Headley
Looks good reading throught the top part; however, you list Jones as a source in the Notes but is not listed with the books? :/  Aaroncrick  TALK 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh geeez, I've lost it. Sorry it was James who's there. Apologies.. woops! I'll try ang get through the article as soon as I can, but I'm rather busy this week - apart from Wednesday :) I would like to look through Hughes, too.  Aaroncrick  TALK 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also feel Boycott is fairly close to FAC. Headley looks as if it could be pushed straight through after GAN.  Aaroncrick  TALK 21:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Adelaide Leak looks good, though. I've been through it, briefly. Congrats on all your hard work on here, too.  Aaroncrick  TALK 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When I have some more time over the Christmas period, I'll run through a few more of your articles - and at very least, get to your FACs. Anyway, must be getting late over in England - good to see you still churning out the articles.  Aaroncrick  TALK 21:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

St Hill
Reviewed. Don't know if you've run through yourself yet to fix up the choppy sentences, but doesn't matter.  Aaroncrick  TALK 10:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your swift reply. Sometime today Aussie time I shall pass it.  Aaroncrick  TALK 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed. I don't know where the Monkey is?  Aaroncrick  TALK 22:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not doing himself any favours :/ No cricket FACs up atm  Aaroncrick   TALK 23:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Woods
Woods is coming along well, but has been delayed somewhat by the fact I've been away from home with work for the last week, and will be for most of the run up to Christmas. I hope to be able to do a bit more on it this coming week, but there's no real guarantee I'll be able. Feel free to have a look through any time, it's at User:Harrias/sandbox4.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 09:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, could you have a quick glance through Herbie Hewett, and give me an honest assessment on whether you think it'd be worth taking it to FA (via a PR). There's very little on his personal and later life, which could be a hindrance.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 16:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Priestley DYK
Hi, I'm not sure if you nominated this for DYK or whether BrownHairedGirl did but, I've reviewed it and it is not yet 5x expanded, can it be expanded further? SmartSE (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Priestley
Courcelles 12:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigi Schmid
I know that you have other stuff on your plate but was wondering if you had a few minutes to take another look at Sigi Schmid. It has been quiet over there unfortunately.Cptnono (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right on. Thanks!Cptnono (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope it was a good weekend.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking good. Nothing so far has jumped out as a concern so I'm just going to trust that the second set of eyes is offering some good fixes.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome. If I find more criticism I will add it but most coverage is complimentary (even though I do think he has boring tactics). Cptnono (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I figured out a decent solution. Would a single line about his termination from LA in the lead after the one praising his tactics would add some balance? If so, can you think of something that is worded well enough to meet FAs standards? I made a longer note over at the nomination page. Thank you for pointing this out.Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/All I Want for Christmas Is You/archive2
Hi Sarastro, thanks for your comments at the FAC. I fixed the issues you mentioned and left you a few comments. Can you please check back and see if its okay? Thanks :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey again :D So I had two different copy-editors check out the article and do some pretty heavy changes. Now, I know you still may not be 100% satisfied with its promotion, but if I've fixed enough, do you think you can consider removing your oppose? I know for your support it must be perfect, but do you think theres a chance to at least leave you neutral? Thanks anyway. I wanted to make a comment as well, because the FAC page is very cluttered. So I know you want more background and recording info, ad trust me I'd love to add it, check out my recent GA "My All", I think thats what you'd like, but for this song there really wasn't much info like this one. Also, it got be an oppose last time, check out Ucucha's comment, he made me remove a quote and background info that wasn't "completely" related. Trust me Iv'e tried. As for more written sources, I looked into it, I have a few books, but I couldn't find anymore critical stuff. What I found, I put in for the 2010 version. Anyway, I hope that while it may not have earned your support, I hope maybe at least the removal of your oppose. Check it out. Thanks so much again!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Maurice Douglass/GA1
I am unsure you gave a fair evaluation of Talk:Maurice Douglass/GA1. It seems you may have had some trouble viewing multipage articles. Drop a note on the GA talk page to explain any issue in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have responded to most of the other issues at the GAC. I will renominate if I see you have been active on WP without deciding to resume a review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the future, when you do GA reviews, don't forget to update the class.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

FAC
Ah, yes; however, it may only be a brief review because it's a rather busy time of the year! Also, LOL at the oppose...  Aaroncrick  TALK 09:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I see the connection now. Also, wonder why Matt's shut up shop with Hughes? Reading Ryan's book on him at the moment - seems to be a fairly interesting character.  Aaroncrick  TALK 09:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah congrats and I'm really sorry, but been to busy and been away.  Aaroncrick  TALK 10:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi - Explain
Hi Sarastro. I appreciate your outreach and concern. I would like to explain. Now, the only thing I can admit to you that I've done differently in your FAC is the simple word, oppose. The issues were indeed what I thought to be incorrect. Normally, I try never to post "Oppose" unless its really bad, because it makes people like Sandy close the nomination immediately and does kind bother the nominator, doesn't it. Usually, if I feel that it isn't good, I'll express it and simply won't post my support. It bothers me to see editors (I know you had quite a few) come to an FAC with 3 or 4 issues, or a large baseless issue and slam "Oppose". You know it hurts. So I admit that in normal circumstances I would not have Opposed, simply commented. I apologize if you felt it was out of revenge. While I admit was upset, I would have no doubt crossed out the Oppose once the criterion were met. I appreciate your offer, as that is basically the one issue that halts most of my FA's. I thank you for your offer, and I apologize if it came across as revenge (which due to the context and timing, I'm sure it did). I'll remove my oppose, first off as you have fixed the issues, and secondly as it is really not my nature to be mean. We'll be in touch :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   10:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarastro. I was wondering if it would be okay to take up on your generous offer? I would like to at least promote one FA in my WIki lifetime lol, so maybe you can help me :) So the article is Butterfly. I think its pretty good. Can you do a copy-edit and any suggestions for changes? No rush, I'd rather the work be good, take your time :D Thanks!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfect! Thank you very much. Sure take your time, I'd rather it be done without haste :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   07:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! So far its looking good. After you've finished, I will address all the issues on the talk page :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   01:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Bosanquet
There's a potted biography of him in Barclay's World of Cricket, but it's pretty short. If time permits, I'll see if there's anything in it that can usefully be added. There are a few other of my books that might also have something on him. Added later: having just had a look at the References section of the article, there seems to be plenty of citations of the printed media, including The Times, The Dictionary of National Biography, Wisden and Warner's book, so I don't think whoever raised the point had much of a case. JH (talk page) 18:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a faily brief piece, and the bits that I added were the only things I could see which hadn't already been covered in the article. JH (talk page) 18:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look through some of my other books if I have a chance, but I won't have much time at all until the 29th, probably not until January being honest.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 09:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Bernard Bosanquet, the innovator. His googly caused much fun and anguish, won many a match, and attracted disciples in all countries, though the dearth of English wrist-spinners today would doubtless have appalled 'Bosie' himself.
 * "B. J. T. Bosanquet, of Eton, Oxford, and Middlesex, who gave cricket a revolutionary manoeuvre – the 'googl'y or 'Bosie' or 'wrong-un', the ball bowled with leg-break action but which turned the other way because the wrist was dropped. This ball, delivered in its early days with a marked lack of accuracy, was developed over the years first by a South African school and late in England and Australia (the first country to be tormented by it). His best Test analysis was 8 for 107 against Australia at Trent Bridge in 1905, and he was a good enough batsman to make a double-century in a representative match at The Oval in 1908. He also dabbled at billiards, ice-hockey, and the hammer-throw."
 * I do have David Frith's book. You're very observant.  I'm short of time at the moment, I'm afraid so it will have to be after Christmas, I think, but I will look into it.  I know I've got photos of Bosie too.  Have a great Christmas and a very happy 2011.  Jack | talk page 19:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Frith's book is essentially pictorial and a typical entry is a photo of Bosie's action on page 93 which has the caption: Bernard Bosanquet, the innovator. His googly caused fun and anhuish, won many a match, and attracted disciples in all countries.
 * On page 161, describing a cigarette card on a plate opposite, Frith says: Bosanquet gave cricket a revolutionary manoeuvre – the googly or bosie or wrong un – the ball bowled with a leg-break action but which turned the other way because the wrist was dropped. This ball, delivered in its early days with a marked lack of accuracy, was developed over the years firstly by a South African school and later in England and Australia.  He quotes Bosie's best career performances and then says: He also dabbled at billiards, ice hockey and the hammer throw.  This last bit might be a useful character item.
 * Other than that he appears in two or three group photos, looking seriously at the birdie. I hope this is useful.   Jack | talk page 18:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarastro. A minor point about Bosanquet is the use of M.C.C. instead of MCC which is the modern usage (including by MCC itself), although I know the periods were in contemporaneous usage. American editors love periods (as we all know, it is their favourite word!) and some try to insist that we should use them too, although most British editors write MCC, BBC, etc. I think this comes down to personal choice but, given that some Americans do have this mindset, I think it would be better if articles about British subjects complied with modern British usage or, more specifically, with the organisation's own current usage (which is incidentally compliant with WP:MOS). It's just a thought and it's your choice but I thought should mention it because we do sometimes have difficulties when we don't comply with American spellings and usages. I've even seen an argument about -ise and -ize! All the best. Jack | talk page 11:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Counties
Yeah, Somerset County Cricket Club is an article I've been meaning to do more work on for ages, but haven't really had the chance. I think one of the biggest problems is that even Yorkshire, who have probably had the most written about them of all the counties, don't even begin to approach half of what is written about most league football teams, certainly not in terms of the club itself. My personal opinion is that one of the most significant and effective changes we can make to the county pages is to remove the records sections, which tend to drag out and clutter the bottom of the articles, and also remove the 'notable players' or whatever it is called. Both of these sections could remain in a different form, with a prosaic approach taken to give a little bit of meat to the most significant players and records. It'd also be nice to knock off a few of those County Championship wins from Yorkshire and pass them over to us down here: we're lacking!  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 08:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yorkshire
Hi Sarastro. I used to do a bit of work on the county club articles when they were small and I introduced what then seemed like a useful standard format for them but, as with anything like this, time goes by and all sorts of stuff gets dumped in them. I particularly dislike notable player sections and statistics. You're right that the club's history will surely need to be broken into a few articles: perhaps (a) ten drunks an' a parson; (b) Lord 'Awke; (c) Wilfred's gonna declare; (d) t'thirties; (e) 1946 to 1960; (f) t'sixties; (g) decline 'n' fall; (h) 21st century. I'll make a note to take a look at it and see what I can add. Jack | talk page 18:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done. I've added my support on the article talk page so, if someone does kick off, we have got the beginnings of a consensus.  We really should do likewise in the other county club articles.  Jack | talk page 08:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! I noticed your activity reviewing Featured Article Candidates, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Butterfly
Thank you so much! :D Oh not at all, please if you see anything else feel free to edit or copy-edit it :) Thanks for the big help, I'll go through the list and try and better it as best I could. Again thanks for everything! :D-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   23:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Cruttwell
I have added a couple of sentences re Cruttwell's election failure. Would it be possible for you to let me know the titles. if any, of the Times reports, extracts of which you left on my talkpage? I will then add this info to the ref. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Len Hutton
The article Len Hutton you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Len Hutton for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Adelaide Leak

 * Yeah I've read it a few times. Congrats.  Aaroncrick  TALK 23:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)