Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851/archive2

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) 12:04, 21 June 2016 [1].

---

Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851

Nominator(s): Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the first first-class cricket match played in Australia and therefore holds significant historical relevance in the world of sports, as Australia is one of the major cricket playing nations. I had nominated this article in February 2016 as an FA candidate. While Nikkimaria had helped then in ensuring the media usage notices for each of the images was appropriately placed on the relevant image files, Casliber and AustralianRupert had given quite helpful suggestions with respect to improving the article. I had become quite indisposed at that time, so wasn't able to complete the suggested changes then. Since then, I have added thousands of words and details to the article as per the suggested edits of Casliber and Australian Rupert. I have to mention the additional guidance of AustralianRupert and Anotherclown, who provided critical improvements to the article in between then and now. Below I have reproduced the comments of the reviewing editors in the first FA review; the comments in red by the side of their reviews are my new replies relevant to this FA review.

The archive of the main comments from the first FA nomination discussion; my new comments are given in Red
Please add new comments below the hatted portion. Xender Lourdes (talk)
Comments from Cas Liber Ok, reading this through now - interesting topic. I will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning!) and jot notes below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC) I don't get a sense of context - i.e. how soon was the second first class match played..why was there none before this and why (and when) was this made the first one. Was this the "official" Tasmanian team or was there another team in Hobart? You don't have to add much but a little context would help alot here. (Done and details added. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Also, with the crowd - any mention on how much tickets cost? was this a bigger than expected turnout? Or smaller? (No idea about tickets cost in any reference, but have added a few details of the crowd. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Some of the sentences are a bit on the abrupt side. (Identified and repaired. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Rather than link "intercolonial" to the wiktionary adjective, you might wanna link that to Intercolonial cricket in Australia....(that article also mentions something about the match being related to Victoria becoming a colony, which I think would be relevant to this article) (Done both. Xender Lourdes (talk)) The match could be buffed a bit - e.g. maybe add who were the openers who came in at first -more sequential... (This took the maximum time. Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) It's a bit of a list, but either the facts are there or they aren't if not available, just note them. back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC) (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Comments from AustralianRupert G'day, fascinating topic. Long time cricket fan, but I rarely edit such articles, so I can't say I'm really qualified to give much advice here, although I will try to offer something. These are my suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC) I would also like to see a larger lead section for a Featured Article - perhaps if you expand the context per Cas Liber's comments, it will give you more content to summarise; (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) I wonder about the title of this article, perhaps "Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land first-class cricket match, 1851" might be more intuitive? (I tried this, but was reverted back by another editor who commented that the changed format was not the name style followed. Also, as there is a redirect of First first-class cricket match in Australia and similar sounding terms to this article, I think it's okay to have this title. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "11 February 1851 – 12 February 1851" --> "11–12 February 1851"? (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "over (cricket)" is overlinked (no pun intended); (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "1850-51": should have an endash; (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "11-12 Feb 1851": should have an endash; (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) I think you could get away with moving the images of the captains up the page a little, so that they are not impinging on the References section (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) I'm not sure about the formatting of your references. I know it is not a requirement to use a template like {{cite web}}, but the current formatting looks a bit strange to me. For instance, it is more normal to include the wikilink with the title, rather than the by line. Also, some of your citations begin with authors, and others don't, giving the impression of an inconsistent approach (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) There is a large focus on stating someone was the first to do something, and to be honest, I think this is a distraction from the actual narrative. E.g. "so so was the first opening batsman", I don't think this is really worth a mention. It was the first first-class match, so it kind of goes without saying. (My opinion only, please feel free to disagree); (As I've written a lot more in the match proceedings section, I believe this issue reads much better within the article now. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "Melbourne Cricket Club chose the colours red, white and blue..." --> what colours did VDL wear? (Could not find out from any source. Xender Lourdes (talk)) perhaps explain what a "timeless cricket match" means? (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) in the Background section perhaps you could state whether the players were paid, or if they were amateurs? How were the teams selected? i.e what competition did they come from (local club cricket, or something else?), were they from all sections of society, or just from a small group, etc. (Done and added a lot. Xender Lourdes (talk)) perhaps you could add an Aftermath type section that discusses when the two teams met again, and maybe when they changed their names to Victoria and Tasmania (as opposed to Port Phillip and Van Diemen's Land)? Did this match up develop into a significant rivalry between the two states? (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) did the players in the match go on to represent their colonies again, or was this the only match they played? (Added. Xender Lourdes (talk))

I will reiterate what I had mentioned in my first nomination; that I am still a fairly new editor here so apologise in advance if either this nomination is not in order or there are issues with the article. I hope this article can be given guidance and suggestions to enable it to come up to the FA criteria. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose with regret: The article has been much expanded since its previous FAC nomination in April, but a brief glance reveals serious problems related to overdetailing, uncited statements (whole paragraphs in some cases), single-sentence paragraphs, etc. And there is some weird prose, e.g.: "the cricket ground was rough and wobbly..." – wobbly? Is that a description of a cricket ground? Other strange phrasing included "the toss was taken", and "with Tabart and Arthur batting at 2 and 0 respectively". There's much, much more, and the account of the final stages of the match is particularly confusing. So I think the text needs a pretty thorough overhaul, preferably with the help of someone with FAC experience who is knowledgeable in cricket, like User: Sarastro1 if you're lucky enough to get him. I respect the effort that has gone into researching this interesting and historic match but unfortunately, at present, the prose is not near to featured standard. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Also with regret but I fear this will become a very lengthy exercise in rework, and FAC is not intended to be the place for that (though it does happen, more than it should). I endorse Brian's suggestions and recommend also that you try a Peer Review before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I will do that. Thank you Ian (and Brian too). Will reapply once the article is edited to FA standards. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.