Talk:Golden age of cricket

I've done a little to this article, but it needs much more work. There are a lot of typos and broken links. In particular:

• Worcestershire seems to have been omitted!
• All the county links are to the georgraphical county articles rather than to the county cricket club articles.
• Johnny Tyldesley ought to be mentioned for Lancashire.

JH (talk page) 21:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Article

I can't remember my password as Jim Bakken so now I'm fieldgoalunit. I should have included Tyldesley. I have completed Worcs. In time I'll summarise test cricket. I do not have time to study the protocols in detail I'm afraid but in fact apart from typos only the links need fixing and I would be grateful if someone would do it. Too many cricket articles have inaccuracies or rambling tales attached to them - The Bob Taylor one was the worst - wrong match for his highest score, wrong series, not night watchman and story about it therefore nonsense. Also he never challenged Knott for his place.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you look to your own inaccuracies and ramblings. It is not up to other people to correct your spelling, grammar, incorrect links, etc. If this "article" is the best you can do, I suggest you do as I do and simply READ Wikipedia with minimal input. --JamesJJames (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tags

The tags I have applied to this article speak for themselves. In the four years that I have been using this site for reference, I have never seen such an abysmal article. I do not understand how the cricket project has allowed this to develop unchecked.

The main complaint I have is that there is absolutely nothing in the article to explain WHY this particular period should be a so-called "Golden Age". Why then and not the 1950s or the 1820s?

The article is just a bucket for assorted facts and figures from the period in question. There is no coherence. The spelling, grammar, syntax and overall presentation are dire. Even though an attempt has been made to cite sources, it is a complete mess and does not meet site standards.

All the information it contains could just as easily be housed in one of the English seasons articles that the cricket project has set up. The season articles would be the proper place because then the information would be in context.

Finally, there is the question of copyright. Where exactly has this stuff come from? The wording used suggests to me that it has been copied direct from various books and magazines (and then misspelt in the process).

In my view, the subject is unencyclopaedic when no explanation can be given in support of the title which is entirely subjective and therefore in breach of WP:NPOV.

I suggest that the article is deleted or, if some justification can be made for keeping it, it should be reduced to a bare stub and then rewritten by someone who knows how to write an objective and meaningful article. --JamesJJames (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the article needs a lot of work. (Indeed, I said as much in an earlier comment here.) With regard to the time period, cricket literature has commonly applied the expression "The Golden Age" to the couple of decades or so before WW1, rather than to any other period. The article does provide a couple of citations for that, but more authoritative ones than book reviews would be preferable. JH (talk page) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright question, we should assume good faith. Is there any evidence of it being copied from a book? How could you possibly know that based on the wording? I think the expansion by User:JimBakken was basically OK, if in need of extensive wikification, as it told a story of important events during the period. To carte-blanche delete the lot was unnecessary, IMHO. —Moondyne click! 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the basic content, while needing formatting, was basically sound and certainly did not deserve the scorn it has been given here and at the AfD. What else would an article on the Golden Age of cricket be about, if not about the events and players of the period? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested topics

I made a start by introducing a Test cricket section which must also include South Africa.

I think there should be sections about the County Championship and the Sheffield Shield; something about MCC and Lord's during the period; definitely sections about the universities and Gentlemen v Players; and something about the amateur / professional divide with mention of the social and economic realities faced by the professionals.

The important points to bear in mind are to achieve a solid structure and to keep things in context. --JamesJJames (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For most of the suggested topics we will be able to draw on the Wiki articles that already exist about them. Depending on how extensive the coverage is of the period that we are interested in, this may involve either expanding or summarising what that other article says. There will obviously be a lot of scope for linking to these articles, as well as to those covering individual seasons and tours. Some of the articles on the individual county clubs and Australian state teams may have history sections that we can draw on. JH (talk page) 19:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Other possible topics: developments in the Laws and playing conditions, developments in technique (Ranji introducing the leg-glance, the first swing bowlers, Bosanquet discovering the googly). great indivisual achievements (Grace's 100 hundreds and 1000 runs in May in 1895, Richardson exceeding 1000 wickets over a period of just 4 seasons, 3000 runs in a season for the first time, Hirst's "double double", Barnes' 49 wickets in a Test series). Of course, if we aren't careful the article could be bunping up against the recommended limit on size! JH (talk page) 20:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pity

I thought the earlier article was rather informative. Is it not possible that James has exceeded the rules of good behavior. One sees his remarks as a personal attack with no relationship to the article in question. I can't help but think his approach brings the project into some sort of contempt.Mountlaurel (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

James has some valid points, but I feel that we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater to a certain degree here. The old version are still there in the article history - I'd like to see some of that moved back. I'll not be in a position to do so however for another week or so due to other commitments. —Moondyne click! 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)