Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Crossland/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2017 [1].

Jack Crossland

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 10:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Crossland was one of a number of "suspect" bowlers during the late 19th century. His bowling action was generally considered to be a throwing one, rather than a bowling one, and it was this that defined him in history. Had his action been commonly judged as fair, he would probably have played Test cricket for England, but instead he was the subject of continued and growing protests from crowds, administrators and fellow players. In the end, he was thrown out of county cricket for living in the wrong place! An interesting cricketing story that I enjoyed researching. As ever, all criticism is welcome. Harrias talk 10:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:John_Crossland.jpg: does the given source provide credit for this image?
  • File:Kennington_oval_1891.jpg: given tag requires that you demonstrate steps taken to try to ascertain author, but it appears an author is named at the source page? Also, when/where was this first published?
  • I've clarified this a little bit on the Commons page. The photographer remains unknown, but the photo was published in 1891 in W. G. Grace's book, "Cricket". I'm pretty awful with image copyright stuff, so let me know what more needs to be done on this. Harrias talk 16:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically what you have to do to use that UK-unknown tag is explicitly lay out on the image page what steps you've taken to try to identify a photographer. For example, if the original source doesn't credit the image (either in caption or elsewhere in the book), you should say so. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ranji_1897_page_231_Lord_Harris.jpg needs a US PD tag and date of death for author
  • My understanding of UK law is that expiration of copyright for corporate works is still dependent on the life of the actual photographer (see here). If the specific photographer is unknown, you can use the UK-unknown tag as for the above image, and follow its provisions as far as UK copyright. As far as US copyright, with a pre-1923 publication PD-US would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting also while I'm here that several of your harvlinks are broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Nikkimaria. As I said above, I find the image copyright and tagging a minefield, so any assistance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Also, was there any specific way you found out the harvlinks were broken, or just by clicking on them? Harrias talk 16:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ucucha/HarvErrors is a neat script, you could install it to check those. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks. You are, as ever, a star. Harrias talk 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]
  • "claiming 112 wickets at an average of just over ten" - per match?
  • "Lancashire were recognised by some publications as being champion county, or more commonly as joint champions with Nottinghamshire in 1882" - is this mentioned in the source that they were recognized by different publications as top county?
  • "Crossland was strong again, and claimed ten wickets in a match on three occasions;[13] first against Oxford University in late May–early June.[48]" - why the semi colon instead of a comma here?
  • The second paragraph in "Termination of county cricket career" seems out of place; it seems like it should be under a legacy section
  • "his yorker were described" - do you mean to say was described?

These are generally nitpicks, as the article is in great shape. Well done! ceranthor 14:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: Thanks; I've addressed each of your points, most significantly the note to explain bowling averages, and the restructure towards the end, let me know how you think they work. Harrias talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the prose. Good work. ceranthor 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm obviously going to review this one! (So I'm recusing as coordinator) A quick glance looks really good; I wonder though do we need a little more on the wider throwing issue? It was a prickly topic after this, pretty much up to the time of Arthur Mold and I wonder do we need that context? For throwing continued after Crossland disappeared, and became an even bigger issue. Sourcing looks good. There is a little bit on this in the Brodribb book on the laws of cricket (it's in the Mold bibliography) so I'll have a look for it and see if there's anything useful there. But from memory, there's not much on Crossland and I think you've got it covered. I'll also look in the Lancashire County History book and see if there's anything there too. I shall delve in the next day or two. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I missed the bit where he moved from Nottinghamshire to work in Lancashire, is there any detail there we could add?
    • I don't really have anything more than the article already has: "..he was one of a number of Nottinghamshire-born cricketers who sought professional contracts in Lancashire. The Lancashire cricket leagues began paying the best players to appear for them, creating an exodus of cricketing talent to the county. Crossland first gained employment as a professional cricketer in 1876, with Enfield Cricket Club." Or is this in the lead specifically? Harrias talk 08:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claiming 112 wickets at an average of just over ten." perhaps make that clear, i.e. ten runs (or ten runs per wicket for superclarity). I note the note, so perhaps just "runs".
  • Perhaps use "ten-wicket haul" and link to the Glossary of cricket terms because we actually use the term to really mean "ten or more" in many situations, and since Cricinfo's Statsguru has died (for me, at least), I can't check if that's the situation with Crossland.
  • We have an article on Gentlemen v Players if that helps our readers understand that terminology.
  • You have "Enfield Cricket Club" but have piped "Burnley", not sure why?
    • It was sort of a first-use thing; the first mention of a cricket club, I put the full name, but then I assumed it was obvious after that. Given the phrasing, I could pipe Enfield too I suppose. Harrias talk 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For that touring Australian team, we could link to Australian cricket team in England in 1882 instead of the national team for "touring Australians".
  • Oh, you link it in the next section... perhaps do it here too?
  • The Arguss should be (Melbourne) not Australia, and perhaps therefore "a Melbourne-based daily newspaper" rather than "an Australian daily newspaper".
  • Link Old Trafford first time round.
  • Consider linking "town crier" as it's not a common term outside our shores.
  • You link coal pit towards the end of the article but not coal miner near the top. Thoughts?
  • " to no ball him." hyphenate per before?
  • Put (MCC) after its initial mention so when you use the abbreviation it's clear.
  • I've recently stumbled on Trove when dusting up the Segrave Trophy, and found this which has a rather quirky anectdote or two about Crossland. Just for interest.

Otherwise it's a good read, seems comprehensive and looks like it's MOS-compliant, nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @The Rambling Man: I liked that story about the batsman being hit on the leg, and walking off anyway, but sadly I've seen the identical story about another bowler, so I'm a bit dubious about how true it is. There is another about Crossland showing someone the difference between bowling and throwing, which might be worth working in I suppose. Harrias talk 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • CricketArchive, a much-used source, is behind a paywall and needs a (subscription required) template.
  • Refs 48 and 71: other refs to this source contain links, but these don't
  • Publisher location needed for Gordon book.

Otherwise, sources look good and appropriate - an excellently researched effort, if I may say so. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brianboulton, all sorted. Harrias talk 09:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro: I'm finally looking at this properly, and as usual have copyedited as I've gone along. I haven't had a chance to dig out those two books yet, but promise to do so this week! I'm down to the end of "Lancashire professional" so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Lancashire cricket leagues began paying the best players to appear for them, creating an exodus of cricketing talent to the county": Hmm, there's something a little off here. Most of the leagues, particularly the official "Lancashire Leagues", did not form until the late 1880s, after Crossland's career. Additionally, the practice of paying the best players did not come in until a little later; I think Bobby Peel was one of the first good players to be tempted to the leagues. The source is a little vague on detail, I notice, and probably attributes more to Peter Wynne-Thomas than he meant. (There might be something in the official Lancashire history I keep meaning to dig out, as that is written by PYT) I suspect, although I have no source to hand, that it would be more accurate to say that the Lancashire CCC actively poached Nottinghamshire players rather than they were attracted to the leagues.
  • Another (slight) problem with his early career is that we need a bit more context than sourcing to CricketArchive scorecards; coverage of these matches is a little patchy so there could be important things missing, and we don't really have any idea how significant the matches are. So, for example, "Crossland improved upon his previous efforts" may not be accurate as there could be other matches not recorded there. Additionally, I think it was the practice of Lancashire to farm out players to local clubs when they were qualifying, which might explain this a little more. Of course, we need a source...
  • "Crossland's performances for Enfield drew the attention of Lancashire County Cricket Club": This is sourced to the obituary, which only says that he qualified for Lancashire. Similarly, "He claimed wickets consistently through the season" can't be sourced to the seasonal bowling averages; you might be better with the player oracle list of games played as your source.
  • The list of performances is unavoidably dry, and might benefit from more details here and there. Where they might come from, I'm not sure.
  • I think the best thing I can do before carrying on is seeing what the Lancashire History has to say; I don't think I'll get a chance to retrieve it today, but should be able to do so tomorrow. I'll also do a bit of digging and see what I can find. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Just noting that I've seen this. A fair bit of it I need some time in front of books to consider, but I don't think it is worth doing too much in advance of your digging, as anything I do now seems like it might be subject to change depending on anything you find. Harrias talk 11:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a lot in the Lancashire History, rather more than I can simply stick in here and there. Perhaps the simplest way to do this os for me to note the main details on the talk page. If there's anything that you want in more detail, I can send you the pages by email, but most of them are fairly brief mentions which don't warrant sending the images... and there are a lot of pages! Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've put quite a bit from that book and Brodribb's Next Man In that is relevant. Incidentally, the Lancashire book gives the full picture from which the image of Crossland comes. It is just a very close crop (hence the blurring) of a team photo taken in 1881. The credit is given to Lancashire CCC but no indication of when it was first published. Sarastro (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually have the Brodribb book, which I bought on your recommendation a few years ago. I had thought I already had some stuff in the article from it, but evidently it missed the cut! Thanks for all that, I'll take a look, though it probably won't be until the end of the week now, I've got a few busy days at work coming up. Harrias talk 21:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a further note that due to some family illness at home (nothing serious, just typical winter bugs) I probably won't get to this over the weekend unfortunately. Harrias talk 13:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jack_Crossland/archive1&oldid=1086353566"