Talk:E. W. Bastard/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good piece of work. I've done a quick copy-edit and cleared up a few points. Also, I cut a few phrases I thought were unnecessary. Anything you aren't happy with, feel free to revert. Just a few questions before I pass:

"often said to be the university's best ever": Said by who?

This is a difficult one, because Bolton says that it is often said.. but I seem to recall something in Altham and Swanton.

I've changed this slightly, and reffed Altham and Swanton. Harrias ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"placed him among the 20 most prolific bowlers in the country": In terms of average or number of wickets?

Wickets: I tend to figure that "prolific" signifies quantity, but I can see that it's still ambiguous, I'll clean up.

Changed to "among the 20 most prolific wicket-takers in the county" - does that make it clearer? Harrias ^talk 20:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"along with the acquisitions of Ted Tyler and George Nichols": Acquisition or acquisitions (I'm not sure here).

I'd say plural; they came from different sources at different times.

The matches against OUCC first team: were they trial games or practice games?

No idea, I only have the CricketArchive scorecards for them; they aren't mentioned in Bolton.

Bolton blamed the weather for the loss: did it rain? If so, maybe mention the sticky wicket.

I've expanded upon this a bit: feel free to tidy the language. Harrias ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"in 1884 as part of the team which has often been described as Oxford's best ever.": Described by who?

As above.

"scored 52 runs in "quick time"" Attribution in text is needed.

Wasn't too keen on this looking back at it: have changed to simply "scored 52 runs quickly," Harrias ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bastard "bowled with great skill on the last morning"" Again, needs attribution.

Added. Harrias ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Somerset could only field nine men in the fixture": How did that happen? (Sorry, I've got to ask!)

I can't give you a cited answer. I guess slightly more than I probably should in the Somerset County Cricket Club in 1885 article: I think probably a combination of their poor form, and bad luck.

Everything else checks out.

I won't bother to put this on hold unless you haven't been able to get to it before tomorrow evening. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered a few quick replies, and will fix what I can in a bit. Harrias ^talk 20:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All fine now, good to go. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]