Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 January 2011.

Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer)

 * Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The inventor of the googly, Bernard Bosanquet was a fairly mediocre cricketer who just happened to discover a completely revolutionary style of bowling. Although he went to Eton, he was not a typical amateur cricketer and while trying to get an advantage in a table top ball game, discovered a way to throw a ball so that it spun in the opposite direction to normal without looking different. He began using it in cricket and was transformed from a very average batsman who bowled a bit into an international, match-winning all-rounder. He won two matches with his bowling before he lost his ability to bowl. Even at his best, he was always erratic and was in effect a very bad "good bowler" whose best delivery was unplayable to batsmen at the time. This article is a GA and has been peer reviewed by Brianboulton. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Images all free, properly licensed and sourced, I would suggest File:Pelham_Warner_Vanity_Fair_3_September_1903.jpg should look into the text per WP:MOSIMAGES, regardless if you follow this suggestion of not WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and done anyway. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments
 * A note about ISBNs: these should be given for all or none applicable books, rather than some & not others. Thus ref 58: the Wisden Anthology should have an ISBN (and an editor, Benny Green). And, on the same basis, ISBNs should be given for individual Wisden almanacks, if they are post-1970.
 * Done, I think, including editor. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have carried out several spotchecks for verification and found no issues here.
 * The sources are reliable and of appropriate quality. However I would like to have seen wider use made of book sources; there is rather a lot of dependence on Warner's 1903–04 tour account. Bosanquet is discussed in many cricket histories (including by modern writers), especially those dealing with the "Golden Age".
 * All the book sources I have seen do not give much detail about him and are fairly generic and based on what is already in the article. I will see what else is available but I'm not too confident! --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at David Frith's The Golden Age of Cricket, or one or other of the various Middlesex CCC histories (David Lemmon the most recent, but also from Anton Rippon and E M Wellings)? Perhaps the "character" writers (Cardus, Arlott, Robertson-Glasgow) may have had something interesting to say? Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in Cardus or Crusoe. I've put in a request at WP:Cric for anyone who might have access to anything. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some info from Frith's book added, but not too enlightening. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I peer-reviewed this, found it interesting and informative, and will add a more general review a little later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - The prose feel quite underwhelming, with many sentences not explaining the information well. Additional issues exist. Here are a few to sample just from the lead.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   09:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC) I am comfortable supporting this article as my issues were fixed.-- CallMe Nathan   &bull;  Talk2Me   11:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   09:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * content=
 * and achieved a regular place in the county side -> what does this mean?
 * It means that he played regularly in the county team. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * method, method
 * Thanks, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * method of bowling the ball later christened the "googly" which he steadily practised during his time at Oxford -> what? perhaps you are missing proper punctuation
 * Not too sure what you mean here. What punctuation is missing? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bosanquet developed a method of bowling the ball later christened the "googly" which he steadily practised during his time at Oxford -> there needs to be certain stops in the sentence, it needs commas.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   10:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure I agree, but added commas. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * but it was not until 1903 his new method -> that
 * Not necessary. "That" can be omitted quite a lot of the time and the sentence flows better. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * was selected in 1903 for the fully representative -> poorly written
 * Could you please clarify what is poorly written? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * for the fully representative Marylebone Cricket Club (M.C.C.) tour of Australia -> doesn't make sense. Perhaps you mean "the sole representative"?-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   10:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In cricket at that time, there were several types of representative cricket: some involved fairly poor players and so was not "fully representative", i.e. the best players had not all been chosen. So a fully representative side is one containing the best available players. It is fairly common cricket terminology, but if it is a problem I can either switch to "representative" or add a note (although I'd prefer not to). To be honest, my prefered option is to leave it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * wickets -> whats a wicket?
 * Linked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * He died in 1936 -> if your going to tell us the year he died, you should detail his age as well.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Bosanquet developed a method of bowling"—I prefer this to technique.  Aaroncrick  TALK 09:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed synonymns around to return to "method of bowling". --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter, hopefully the above oppose is in good faith and not in retaliation to Sarastro's opposition to your article, All I Want for Christmas Is You.  Aaroncrick  TALK 09:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is in the utmost good faith. I would not act childish and simply retaliate with an oppose. I see various prose issues that I readily pointed out from the lead alone.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   09:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I believe this oppose is in retaliation for my oppose here, based mainly on the similarity of comments here to those in the other FAC and also on these  comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - If your going to attempt at accusing me revenge, them I will most certainly maintain my oppose. Your logic is flawed as my 2 comments have absolutely nothing to do with you or your opposition. As I recall, the first link you posted is me ranting at how Sandy is unfair etc. Next, I discuss someone opposing for the use of her official website. As I recall here, that wasn't you, it was Guerillero. The second link is me discussing opposes about, yes the nature of your oppose. As you can see by the post, I was very calm and understood the nature of your oppose, except the written sources part. If you can't accept the fact that your nomination is flawed an not perfect, and keep trying to make up excuses for your lack of understanding, then you are quite frankly, missing the point.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   10:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)}}
 * Support and some slight comments, another well written cricket article by Sarastro.
 * "They improved his play to the point where he played for the cricket first eleven in 1896". How did they improve his play (if you can't find out why I understand), and what does the first eleven means?
 * No idea what they did (surprise, surprise) but added a note explaining eleven. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Bosanquet scored 120" 120 what? I'll presume runs, but it's confusing for the non-cricket reader.
 * Correct and done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Despite a top-score of 17" That's poor right?
 * Yes, tweaked to "top-score of just 17". --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "did not distinguish himself" Any stats given as why?
 * Didn't really want too many more stats, as per peer review, but added a little which hopefully doesn't drag too much. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "However, both umpires were unsighted" Does that mean they couldn't see the play?
 * Yes, I think it's a fairly common expression. I think adding any more here would drag the prose down a little. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I only covered about half the article so far, but it looks good. Thanks Secret account 17:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, much appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment No opinion yet. I'm doing a thorough copyedit. Likely to finish it tomorrow. I've reworked the Lead (sorry about that), making tweaks to body copy and am leaving some questions at the article talk, to keep this page tidy. --Dweller (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replied there, and will continue to do so. Just to note I've tweaked one or two of your changes if that's OK. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. cricinfo.com is now espncricinfo.com, but I fixed that. -- Pres N  05:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Sorry for the wait, but I wanted to see a lull in the copy-editing before dropping on by.
 * In the lead, a comma would be useful after Reginald Bosanquet. There's a similar issue in the Personal life section, in regards to his first name.
 * Early life: "and became a partner in a hide, leather, and fur brokers in London". Should "broker" be singular? If there was more than one broker, the second "a" shouldn't be here.
 * "Developing the googly: If I remember correctly, starting a sentence with "But" is not great form. Would "However" get the same idea across?
 * 1904 season: "in a match in which Middlesex held the advangtage." Typo at the end.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All done. I'm fairly sure it should be brokers here (i.e. more than one broker at the firm), so I altered it to a "firm of brokers". Altered "but" to "instead", which I hope works. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – Another nice article from the cricket people. I didn't find too much to be concerned about prose-wise while reading it, and the few issues I saw were quickly taken care of. The sourcing looks sound as well.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

 Leaning to support Support: I, too, have been waiting for the copyedits to abate before adding a few relatively minor points:- I look forward to supporting after these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You could mention, per this, that Bosanquet's father B.T. Bosanquet was High Sherrif of the County of Middlesx in 1897
 * Done: it was also covered by ODNB which I used to ref. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What was Bosanquet's relationship to the philosopher namesake?
 * Almost impossible to find out. Looking at the ODNB it appears they would be some sort of cousin but it's quite vague and there are lots of Bosanquets to plough through. My best effort is second cousin once removed, but I would rather leave it out as I'm not sure and there is no direct ref that I can find. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of mentions in the text of Bosanquet's "business interests", but no indication of the nature of these. Was he in the family hide and fur brokerage, or banking? The small value of his estate does not suggest wealth.
 * Again, no ref says what he did! I suspect it was nothing grand, or the Times would have carried it, but just says "business interests". Nor does Who's Who say anything. I get the impression he was quite well to do, and maybe got by on the family's wealth and did little bits on the side. It is very hard to find the business interests of many amateur cricketers from the period, unfortunately. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Explain who the "Eton Ramblers" are. You could use this source
 * I actually took Eton Ramblers out of this altogether as another reviewer suggested they may be too obscure. I'm inclined to agree, and they did not have much relevance for his career. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The qualifier "just" is overused - there are around a dozen instances in the article. Apart from its being repetitive, it sometimes carries POVish overtones, in the form of a personal comment on Bosanquet's performances. So my recommendation is to lose most of them.
 * Removed all of these. Hopefully, the article is clear enough for a non-cricketer to know when scores are "good" or "bad" (see comment above!). --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with your responses and am now pleased to support. Fine article on an interesting cricketer. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thank you for all your help with the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A small point - surely his son is best described as a television "newsreader" rather than presenter. I am not sure he has any significant credits as a presenter.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Done, thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I left two inlines on jargon; resolve as you wish. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.