Talk:1950–51 Ashes series

What is this all about?

Series of what? What is the sport. For someone who is not Australian or a big fan of cricket this article is not clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.210.162 (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Test matches" link added in case readers do no realise from content and links that the English national cricket team contests the Ashes.Philipjelley (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

1950–51 Ashes series

• ... ... that the rainstorm that caused 20 wickets to fall on the third day of the First Test in the 1950–51 Ashes series was blamed on the atomic bomb experiment carried out by the Americans on Bikini Atoll (pictured)?

Created by Philip Jelley (talk). Self nom at 21:05, 7 November 2010 (GMT)

• This article was started by Philipjelley (talk · contribs) on October 11, 2010, so this is not a brand new article. And, there's no evidence of page-moving out of a personal sandbox. Article continued to grow but there was no 5-fold expansion in the last 5 days. Shall we cut this DYK-rookie some slack? Philip, please see the rules at WP:DYK. Good luck. --PFHLai (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's a fantastically bonkers hook, so it's got me on side from the start, even if it was just an old wives' tale. 20 wickets falling in a day is fairly unusual, and at that time the Ashes series was unquestionably the premier event in cricket, so 20 wickets in an Ashes match is a pretty big deal. It looks like the fact was added at 18:44 on 18 Oct, so just under a week after the article was created, so probably would have just about squeezed in if it had been nominated at the time - and there would have been no problems with length if it had been nominated then, it's obviously been a labour of love. And encouraging newbies is A Good Thing. Set against that, I'd understand arguments about slippery slopes, and how long do you give people. It's also a bit "chatty" in tone, it could do with some copyediting to a more encyclopaedic style. So it's not a no-brainer, but I'd tend to support cutting him some slack, given that it's less than a month since creation and it's still under active growth, but mostly because it's such an arresting hook. Le Deluge (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• AGF for offline sources, and IAR for newness/expansion. The hook itself is exemplary, and the image makes this a strong candidate to be a lead hook in an update. cmadler (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I found the DYK hook interesting enough to look at 1950–51 Ashes series, but the quote from Fingleton in the "Result" section makes me wonder if you made a transcription error. Does the source really say "Old women of both sexes"? Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is the phase, I can scan the page for you if you like. In England (and Australia) an "Old Woman" is someone who worries too much. While initially referred just to old women it came to mean anyone. So by saying "Old women of both sexes" Fingleton was pointing out that it wasn't old women who were worrying about this but the "Old Women" in politics and the press. Actually, "Old women of both sexes" became a common phase in the 1950s-1980s, and is refered to in Yes, Minister, joking about the number of old men in the cabinet - even though most of them were old women. Philipjelley (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! No need to scan the page; as an American, I've never before encountered this usage. Do you think it's appropriate to add [sic] to the phrase?

I have added a link instead: Old women of both sexes Philipjelley (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)