Talk:Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias ^talk 21:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall there are definitely no serious issues with this article.

Oxford University

• "taking five wickets in an innings against Marylebone Cricket Club" I'd prefer "the Marylebone Cricket Club", but not overly fussed.

• Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• You mention Plum Warner first by his actual name, and then later as Plum, but don't specifically mention that this is the same person. I'd stick with one form (personally I'd say Plum) throughout.

• Changed to Pelham (see below) where it is not obvious who I am talking about, left the rest as "Warner". --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Incidentally, shouldn't Plum's Wikipedia page be at Plum rather than Pelham as that is what he is almost universally known as?

• Probably. If Gubby Allen is at Gubby Allen rather than George Oswald Browning Allen or G. O. B. Allen, Pelham should be Plum. But I hate doing redirects, so I'll call him Pelham! --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

First use in County Cricket

• This seems to be slightly misleading, as the section above (Genesis) describes the balls first use in County Cricket..

• Changed to "Regular use..." --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Recognition of the googly

• "However, Warner later wrote that he was accused of selecting Bosanquet out favouritism as they played on the same county team.." – I'm 90% sure you mean "out of favouritism"?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

1904 season

• "going on to eleven wickets in the latter match" – "going on to take eleven.."?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "..two fives and 15 fours.." – The 'fives' definitely needs explaining or leaving out! I had to read twice and double check the scorecard to make sure you really meant fives! Were sixes actually fives in this match, or did they just run really really fast?

• Good question, had to look it up! They were all run in England, so I've added a note to explain. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

1905 season

• The description of Australia's second innings collapse is a bit stop start, and the sentence "Wickets continued to fall." doesn't seem fitting with an encyclopedia. Instead it appears to create tension in a journalistic manner!

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal life and legacy

• "worth approximately £115,000 in 2008" would probably better be phrased something like "the equivalent of £115,000 in 2008"

• Done, but left "approximately" as it's a bit rough and ready. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning, a lovely article overall, and very educational (for me at least). No big issues, and I'm sure you'll have them sorted pretty soon. Will place it on hold if you haven't responded in the next 24 hours or so. Harrias ^talk 21:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

All done, I hope! --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, all good, I'll pass it in a tick. One thing I did notice is that your first reference, Glenys Williams, is also in your bibliography. Was this duplication intentional? Harrias ^talk 10:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

I'm doing a detailed run-through. I'll post queries here to keep the FAC nice and neat. --Dweller (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• "a rather curious, wristless style; stiff and yet powerful" - this quote from the Times is ambiguous. Does it describe his bowling, as the text implies, or batting, as the quote implies?

Batting, clarified. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Eton Ramblers. Who? Why is this significant? Were they first-class matches? Should it be included at all?

Err... Not sure. It isn't. No. Definitely not. Not too sure why I put it in, so taken it out. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the laughter at the batsmen being hit on the knee in the nets is awkward. The text here implies that being hit on the knee is funny, but it's a common enough occurrence in cricket, isn't it? Reading Bosanquet's article, I think he implies this, but is actually describing the bemusement of the batsmen as being funny. However, it's really not clear. Any ideas what to do?

Tried to clarify. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't changed it, but I don't think that the wikilinking of tabletop game is appropriate. Although twisti-twosti was played on a table-top, it doesn't fall into any of the categories of table-top games that are listed in the linked article. I see that twisti-twosti is briefly described later on, so the link isn't really needed anyway. JH (talk page) 10:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree and have removed it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Legacy: I'm not entirely convinced by moving the section from "Genesis" to "Legacy" as the genesis section now begins with a bald comment about twisti-twosti with no context as to why this is important. I think it was better as it was before, putting the invention of the googly with his background as a mediocre bowler who transformed into a temporary world-beater. Also, the legacy section does not really flow now, as there is a bit about Bosanquet and then his legacy which does not really concern him at all but what happened to the googly. With this in mind, I am putting it back, but feel free to discuss this further. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Genesis: As far as I'm aware, Twisti-twosti no longer exists, so I reverted its description to the past tense. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Player rankings: Not sure about this one. No other recent cricket FACs include it (I'm not sure any do from this time period) and given that there were only around 20 international bowlers at the time, I'm not sure it is too revealing given the paucity of Test cricket in the early 1900s. For example, the rating is pathetic (455) and I don't think he had enough wickets to make it meaningful. How reliable is the data for that time? It also begs the question as to who the top bowlers were: Rhodes, Noble, Saunders, Llewllyn, Barnes, Cotter, Braund and Gunn complete the top 10. Is this meaningful? I would say not enough to include in a FA. Again, I was bold and removed it, but will happily argue away over it! --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• First use of "Bosie" not discussed. --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not mentioned in any of the sources. Given that it is so hard to date googly, I'm not sure it will be possible to cover Bosie. It is mentioned later in the article, but that is the best the sources allow. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Inconsistency in using hyphens in terms like "off-break". --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I think I've got them all. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Googly

The word 'googly' is used in reports of Australian cricket (and horse-racing) in 1885, 1892, 1894, 1896, 1898, 1899.

'Googly' seems to be used in the sense of 'a curly one', 'odd', 'hard to deal with', 'off-beat', a delivery that foxed the batsman.

There is a Sheffield v. Newcastle (UK) 1892 game reported where the word is also used.

Did the English teams touring in the late 19th century pick up the word from the Australian opponents and bring it home with them?

I have found an assertion that the googly was invented by Goulburn (NSW) cricketer Jacob Knopp, who certainly played against the English tourists, in 1887 and 1891:

"HISTORIC MATCH". Goulburn Evening Penny Post. New South Wales, Australia. 20 February 1929. p. 6 (DAILY and EVENING). Retrieved 13 June 2018 – via National Library of Australia.

Bluedawe : Bluedawe 03:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting. It might be a good idea to repeat your post on the talk page for googly itself. JH (talk page) 09:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)