Talk:Ted Sainsbury/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I've misunderstood something Sainsbury was not a professional cricketer, so how did he earn his living?

I haven't found any information on this: I guess that it would be covered in the census records, but I haven't been able to access them. Whatever it was, it clearly wasn't particlarly notable: if I can find this out, I'll add it, but I suspect it won't add much.

It would add a little to the picture of the man as opposed to the cricketer. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I do intend to add more, but I won't be able to get access to the census until I get back from holiday (at the earliest), but most likely it will be a while after that. Harrias ^talk 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think we've done enough to meet the GA criteria anyway, so we can close this review now. Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did he marry? Have children? I understand that the article says that "Little is recorded of Sainsbury's life outside cricket", but is that actually nothing rather than little?

As above. I said "little", because census records will record something, so to say nothing would be inaccurate.

My slight concern is that the article says almost nothing about Sainsbury's life outside cricket, and in particular the last 36 or so years of his life, after he retired from cricket. But if there's nothing available then we'll just have to live with that. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many first-class counties were there in 1885, how many matches could Somerset have played? How many matches did the other first-class counties play?

I don't know whether you are asking me this, or asking me to provide more information in the article? To answer here: Of the 11 first-class counties, Surrey played the most, playing 20 games. After Somerset, the least was Derbyshire's 9.

The article tells us that one of the reasons Somerset lost their first class status was begin they didn't play enough matches, so I was really suggesting that perhaps a little bit of context for that might be helpful, but it's no big deal. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second-class county cricket

"Two further Somerset players who played in that match appeared for Lansdown at other points during their careers." That's rather awkward and I'm not quite sure I understand what it's trying to say. Are we saying that they played for Lansdown later in their careers or that they'd played for Lansdown earlier in their careers?

One played for Lansdown earlier, and the other later; hence "other points"!

I don't think that "points" is the right word here in that case, I'll have a think. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "other points during" to "other stages of"

"He claimed another eight wickets when Somerset travelled to Leicestershire, when Sainsbury and Arnold Fothergill took five wickets each ...". That "when ... when" is rather awkward.

Changed second "when" to "during which"

"Sainsbury was joined at Somerset by his brother Francis during the 1881 season; his older brother appeared four times for the county". This is ambiguous, as we haven't been told whether Francis is that elder brother. As it's written it could be another (unnamed) brother who appeared four times for Somerset.

How about a change to "During the 1881 season, Sainsbury was joined at Somerset by his older brother Francis, who appeared four times for the county." ?

That seems to work. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Harrias ^talk 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset's leading batsman

"The best players in the county, many of whom were not wealthy men, were unable to afford to play for Somerset. In return, the cricket club could not afford to pay professionals to play for them ...". I'm puzzled by the "In return"; in return to who for what? Is "in turn" what's meant? Could it just be dropped?

Yeah, should have been "in turn". Changed.

Troubled captaincy

"Following the departure of Somerset captain Stephen Newton, who played all his first-class cricket in London from the 1885 season ...". Is there a word missing there? "... from the 1885 season onwards" for instance?

Changed as suggested.

"Matches were played more regularly in August". More regularly than what? Somerset had only played two games by then.

Would "more frequently" or "more often" be better here?

"More frequently" works for me.

Changed.

"Despite their low numbers, Somerset reached 166 in their second innings ...". despite their low numbers of what?

Players, will try and rework it.

"Although both were navigated without any further record defeats, they were both lost heavily ...". Rather awkward, needs rewriting.

Maybe I should just cut it down to "Both were lost heavily, ..." ?

I've rewritten it to "Somerset played Surrey and Gloucestershire in their final two matches of the season and lost both heavily, although they did succeed in avoiding any further record defeats". See what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Return to second-class cricket

"A victory over Essex, in which Sainsbury scored 71, was surrounded by heavy losses to Warwickshire and Gloucestershire." "Surrounded" is a strange choice of word here. What about something like "bracketed"?

Bracketed works for me, changed.

Move to Gloucestershire

"The following year was his last in first-class cricket, during which he made five appearances, all for Gloucestershire, scoring 100 runs, at an average of 10.00." This can't possibly be right. His average must have been at least 20.00.

It can very easily be right: supported strongly by the fact that it, in fact, is! As quoted in the reference here, he played in five matches, during which he played ten innings, scoring 100 runs. 100 runs divided by ten innings results in a batting average of 10.00. I'm going to be on holiday for the next week, I will try and resolve as many of the issues you have raised as I can during that time, but it is likely that I won't be able to get much done until I return around the 27 March. Harrias ^talk 23:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, 10 innings, not 5 matches. Duh!
There's no rush, whatever's left when you go on your hols can very easily be left until you get back. I'll wrap up the review later and put it on hold anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captaincy

"... suggesting that during Sainsbury's time as captain he may have included players in the team "on the strength of his social charm and ability to drink into the early hours". That doesn't quite make sense. He included players because of his own social charm etc., as opposed to theirs?

Changed "his" to "[their]".

Right, have responded to most of your comments: some will require further work though. I look forward to your replies. Harrias ^talk 16:23, 19 March 2011 (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.