Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883/archive1


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

The article was removed by User:Joelr31 01:27, 2 November 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified WT:CRIC, jguk, Robertson-Glasgow

Lack of citations is the main concern and I would question the article's accuracy too, although I haven't had time to check that yet. I'm not happy about the tone as the overall read puts me in mind of a magazine article. To be honest, I think that a review of this article against the WP:CRIC B-class criteria would fail and it would be rated C-class. It certainly is well short of current FA standards. Most of the work was done a few years ago and it illustrates how standards have been raised since it was promoted. BlackJack | talk page 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on nominating this myself in the near-future. I see a lack of inline citations, problems with the first two images and prose and MoS flaws all over the place. For example, Genesis of Test cricket is filled with proseline: four consecutive paragraphs start with In 1852, 1859, 1861, In 1868. Not FA-level today. Also, I see a few repeat links in the lead, just to give one problem out of many. The lack of references is the biggest issue, but the rest of this needs a lot of help as well.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 19:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Having, at BlackJack's bidding, skimmed through the introductory section, I think a few hitherto-unmentioned points worthy of notice:


 * 1) The voyage between England and Australia was not invariably a 48-day affair. In 1882, for example, the SS Assam took 49 days to convey Murdoch's men from Melbourne to Plymouth, while Ivo's winter wag, delayed by a Sympleglades-like collision with the Glenroy, took as many as 57.
 * 2) It is also untrue that the term "Test Match" did not enter the cricketing patois until 1885: Hammersley employed it in Sands & Kenny's Cricketers' Guide to denote five important matches on Stephenson's 1861/62 tour.
 * 3) Whether the Ashes were presented to Bligh after he had secured them (as the article suggests) or beforehand at Sunbury (as is far more likely the case) has not yet been established.
 * 4) It is also not universally agreed that the 1882/83 rubber ought to be seen as comprising only three games. A fourth (which, significantly, England lost, thereby drawing the series level) has been granted Test-Match status.

Best, Crusoe (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), prose (1a), MoS (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove. I agree entirely with Marskell's summary of the concerns and I would re-emphasise my concern above about accuracy.  Realistically, I cannot see anyone in WP:CRIC bothering to salvage an article of this type which the project has long since outgrown by introducing reviews of individual seasons, tours and series.  BlackJack | talk page 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. Agree with above comments by and . Cirt (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. Hasn't improved significantly since coming here. I don't consider any of my concerns addressed.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 19:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove written with a bit of an unencyclopedic tone.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove: Lack of inline citations. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.