Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Test matches in the 19th century (to 1883)

Test matches in the 19th century (to 1883)
Self-nomination. I think this is a pretty good review of the history of Test cricket up to the first Ashes series and is now ready for featured article status, jguk 21:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support Being a cricket fan myself, but I must admit I find the title of the article too long. Squash 22:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The 1883 cutoff doesn't seem to make much sense. There's a couple of minor POV problems (i.e. "Certainly it was true that..."). More importantly, there seems to be problems with balance - for instance, three paragraphs on one match, and only a couple of sentences on others, with no apparent reason why. It could also do with a copyedit. Ambi 09:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) Wonderful. Kudos - brilliant rewrite, and this is now one brilliant article. Ambi 10:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've given the article a complete workover. The lead section is reworked to give the 1883 cutoff sense, and the minor POV eliminated. I have also added more information on the matches that were little talked about before, so there are a few sentences on each one now. Of course, some games are more interesting than others, and there's more text on the more interesting ones. As far as its title, would History of Test cricket (to 1883) be better? Maybe chat on the article's talk page? jguk 14:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support A lot of hard has gone into this. Brookie 16:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To borrow a set of arbitrary standards from jguk, there is way, way, way too much detail for users not interested in cricket. (After all, we're not dealing with over 1,000 years of history of the world's largest state.) 172 23:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) [Sorry if my choice of a heuristic demonstration annoyed anyone. Good article. I'd vote support if I knew more about the topic. 172 19:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
 * On principle, every subject can have a featured article, including this one. This oppose vote is in contrary to this principle and should be ignored. After all, how am I meant to fix it? (It also seems a tad vindictive, just because I, along with others, think the History of Russia article is too long at present and should be broken down into 2 to 3 articles), jguk 09:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Once you figure out that it is not to be broken up into 2-3 articles and that it already summarizes 13 individual articles, I will no longer feel the need to make a similarly ill-thought out statement as a demonstration of my point. 172 09:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't be petty, 172. One ill-considered objection does not need another in revenge. Ambi 10:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not "revenge." The point is to applied flawed reasoning somewhere else in order to help Jguk understand that the reasoning is flawed. 172 10:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support Nichalp 18:42, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 21:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Ngb 23:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - and I'm not a fan of the game, but the article is of a very high standard. Well done. Rossrs 13:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, nice work. Neutralitytalk 15:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)