Talk:Billy Beldham/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

c.1782 to... Makes this a little difficult to read - is it circa 1782 or circa 82-21? Perhaps reword to state which. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to "between 1782 and 1821". There is a very slight doubt about 1782 because his first name isn't given in the source but it is almost certainly him, albeit only sixteen at the time. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

top-class player - I vaguely remember this being a cricket term - is there a good link for this? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually just adjectival here but I can see it is ambiguous because of "first-class" which didn't exist then. I've adapted it to "invited to join the Hambledon Club and became mainly associated with....." BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

was a regular choice for England teams. - this kind of undersells that he played for his country for 33 years, which is a crazy innings. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I've switched the order of the sentence to put England first and said he "regularly played for England teams from 1787 until 1820". BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General

The lede gives a birthdate, but the body doesn't. How is this sourced? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I usually source the dates but have overlooked them this time. I've given a source for both in the lead with the same source for his death at the end. I've cited Haygarth for birth in the narrative because he gives a fair bit of additional info but Haygarth's book was published only weeks after Beldham died. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source provides a scorecard.[11 - this is the sort of thing that notes are for Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bit like saying: "there is a source and I've just cited it at the end of the previous sentence". I've removed the sentence. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Holt Pound ground is known locally as "the Oval" and several Surrey matches were contested there, including one in 1808 when they beat England by 66 runs. - I kind of don't understand why the local name is important to this article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the surplus and slightly adapted the rest. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which led to three matches against the Hambledon Club itself for a purse of £100 - when we give money amounts for the past, we should {{convert}} them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guildford & Godalming XXII - a 22? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they often played odds matches as they were known until well into the 19th century. It was done because of gambling to handicap the quality team and try to even things up. Even so, the quality team would usually win because their professional bowlers could dismiss 21 weekend locals as easily as they could dismiss ten; it just took a bit longer. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes should be sourced. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, those were largely forgotten. I took out the "given men" one because it is a common usage term that isn't sourced anywhere. It is in the cricket project glossary so I linked it instead.

16* - on first use, can we say "not out" and then. Put an asterisk in brackets? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point because I'm forgetting that many readers are not familiar with cricket notation which can seem complex on first encounter. I've changed all instances of * to plain not out, the first one linked. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MCC in section head, can we change to Marylebone Cricket Club? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he was an opponent to be reckoned with - this sort of fluffy wording isn't really suitable. Can we not say "he performed well in matches he lost?" And then give examples? Check throughout. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a bit newspaper-ish. I've changed it to "often on the winning side but, even when his team lost, he tended to play well in adversity" followed by the two MCC v Middlesex examples. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haygarth commented on the high match total of 724. - without saying what they said this isn't all that important. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to read that "to Haygarth, a match total of 724 was very high". That is basically all he said. Prevailing pitch conditions, with exposure to weather and use of sheep to shorten the grass, meant that any match total of 400-plus was to the batsmen's credit - nowadays, on manicured and protected "flat tracks", totals of 1,000-plus are very common. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

said: "You - a few times when you start a quote you use a capital. If it's mid-sentence in the prose it should be lowercase. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But where the quotation itself is a complete sentence, with its terminating full stop or question mark within the quotation marks, then I believe it should start with a capital. For example: Bloggs said: "This is correct." I noticed when reading the latest version of the article that "Here" at the start of a quote had become "here", when I didn't think that it should have. JH (talk page) 17:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this again, JH is quite right. If the quote is a sentence or starts at the beginning of a sentence, then the opening capital stays. I've re-amended. There are two, one beginning with "Here" and one with "You". Sorry about the confusion there. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it a "select Bibliography"? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Comes of using another article as a template. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Lee. Please let me know of any questions and I'll try to help. BoJó | talk UTC 04:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the review, Lee. I'll take a look and get back to you soon. All the best. BoJó | talk UTC 09:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Lee. A very thorough review which has helped me to improve the article. I've answered all the points you've raised. Could you please look through and let me know if you have anything else that needs attention. Thanks and all the best. BoJó | talk UTC 21:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.