Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851/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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2016.

Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851

 * Nominator(s): Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the first first-class cricket match played in Australia and therefore holds significant historical relevance in the world of sports, as Australia is one of the major cricket playing nations. While the article is one I authored and brought to GA status, I am still a fairly new editor here so apologise in advance if either this nomination is not in order or there are issues with the article. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:TF_Hamilton.png should include a US PD tag
 * Thanks for the suggestions; I've added a US PD tag. Xender Lourdes (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * File:John_Marshall_of_Tas.jpg: suggest splitting out the FUR for John Marshall (cricketer) to a second non-free media rationale. Also suggest using non-free biog-pic. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the suggestion. What you suggest is already present and was done on 18 February 2016. Xender Lourdes (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, my apologies for missing that. But the first part I think should still be implemented. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * By the first part would you mean splitting out the FUR for the other article John Marshall (cricketer). That too was done on 18 February 2016. Do please guide me if I am missing something. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What I'm suggesting is to have non-free use rationale 2 act as a general information template, and then have the specifics of the two articles as two different non-free media rationale templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * . While I have done what you have suggested, the only problem that I see is that the template non-free use rationale 2 is not a general information template – it requires mentioning of a specific article for usage. The page that provides the guidelines for using these templates suggests that for the general information, one may use Non-free media data and for the multiple articles one may use Non-free media rationale. This is what I have done after your suggestions. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a chance that this picture was published before Page's 1957 A History of Tasmanian Cricket? Photos that were purportedly put in a box before being published a hundred years later for the first time give us gray hairs. There is a good chance this is PD. Does Page give any more specific image credit ( pinging uploader). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I scanned it from a library book some time ago. I'm afraid I don't remember any photo credits. But as he died 140 years ago, wouldn't it automatically be in the public domain?Sammyrice (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, death of the subject affects personality rights but not copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber
Ok, reading this through now - interesting topic. I will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning!) and jot notes below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't get a sense of context - i.e. how soon was the second first class match played..why was there none before this and why (and when) was this made the first one. Was this the "official" Tasmanian team or was there another team in Hobart? You don't have to add much but a little context would help alot here.


 * Also, with the crowd - any mention on how much tickets cost? was this a bigger than expected turnout? Or smaller?


 * Some of the sentences are a bit on the abrupt side.


 * Rather than link "intercolonial" to the wiktionary adjective, you might wanna link that to Intercolonial cricket in Australia....(that article also mentions something about the match being related to Victoria becoming a colony, which I think would be relevant to this article)


 * The match could be buffed a bit - e.g. maybe add who were the openers who came in at first -more sequential...

It's a bit of a list, but either the facts are there or they aren't if not available, just note them. back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I will work on these tomorrow and get them up to speed. ("Some of the sentences are a bit on the abrupt side"; if you could point out, I can work on them. Will any way review the article and see which are abrupt on the face of it). Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I phrased that wrongly - no sentence in and of itself is particularly short..but there are alot of short ones....if you could elide a few otherwise don't worry, just sort content out as there is a bit to add and we can massage it later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure will do that. I have put aside this weekend to work on this. I will ping you if I need assistance on any editorial issue. Thanks for the guidance. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert
G'day, fascinating topic. Long time cricket fan, but I rarely edit such articles, so I can't say I'm really qualified to give much advice here, although I will try to offer something. These are my suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see a larger lead section for a Featured Article - perhaps if you expand the context per Cas Liber's comments, it will give you more content to summarise;
 * I wonder about the title of this article, perhaps "Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land first-class cricket match, 1851" might be more intuitive?
 * "11 February 1851 – 12 February 1851" --> "11–12 February 1851"?
 * "over (cricket)" is overlinked (no pun intended);
 * "1850-51": should have an endash;
 * "11-12 Feb 1851": should have an endash;
 * I think you could get away with moving the images of the captains up the page a little, so that they are not impinging on the References section
 * I'm not sure about the formatting of your references. I know it is not a requirement to use a template like cite web, but the current formatting looks a bit strange to me. For instance, it is more normal to include the wikilink with the title, rather than the by line. Also, some of your citations begin with authors, and others don't, giving the impression of an inconsistent approach
 * There is a large focus on stating someone was the first to do something, and to be honest, I think this is a distraction from the actual narrative. E.g. "so so was the first opening batsman", I don't think this is really worth a mention. It was the first first-class match, so it kind of goes without saying. (My opinion only, please feel free to disagree);
 * "Melbourne Cricket Club chose the colours red, white and blue..." --> what colours did VDL wear?
 * perhaps explain what a "timeless cricket match" means?
 * in the Background section perhaps you could state whether the players were paid, or if they were amateurs? How were the teams selected? i.e what competition did they come from (local club cricket, or something else?), were they from all sections of society, or just from a small group, etc.
 * perhaps you could add an Aftermath type section that discusses when the two teams met again, and maybe when they changed their names to Victoria and Tasmania (as opposed to Port Phillip and Van Diemen's Land)? Did this match up develop into a significant rivalry between the two states?
 * did the players in the match go on to represent their colonies again, or was this the only match they played?
 * Hello, , I got a bit indisposed and wasn't able to come to Wikipedia at all the past few days. Now am better and will work on these on this weekend. Many tys for the points. Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine...we're still here :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled and there is no consensus for promotion after almost two months. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC) -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.