[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Bart King

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBart King is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 19, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
April 11, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 7, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Assessment

[edit]

This might just be my personal taste, but the sentences look a bit short and choppy in some places (one sentence starts with "but" for example). It's not quite an A article for reasons of length (there should be a bit more to write on a ten-year career) and language, but it's a good starting point. Sam Vimes | Address me 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also give it a B-Class rating, but I think with a bit of work and a lot of expansion on his career, you can at least put it through WP:GAC. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assessments, folks. As time permits, I'll try to flesh out the article based on your suggestions and any others that come in. This wikipedia business really eats up your time if you let it.--Eva bd 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people have posted information on the rec.sports.cricket newsgroup regarding Bart King. It can be found here, here, here, and here. I'm going to try adding extra information into this article, but anyone else is welcome to help, as well.--Eva bd 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also see here and here for more information. You can see my working draft of the article here.--Eva bd 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. :) I've reworded one sentence, as it originally read rather as though it was Belmont who toured England in 1908, rather than the Philadelphians. JH 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-off for records

[edit]

It was during his time with Belmont, in 1908, that King topped the England bowling averages with the extraordinary figure of 11.01. This was not bettered until 1958 when Les Jackson of Derbyshire posted an average of 10.99.[9]

What is the cut-off for inclusion in this list ? King did not take 100 wkts (he took 87), so I guess it is something else (like we have 8 completed innings criterion for batting). Tintin 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no universally agreed cut-off. However all the figures that I've seen used are far short of 100 wickets. (Which is just as well, since with the reduced f-c programme of recent years 100 wickets is now rarely reached.) JH 18:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those 87 wickets came in only 10 first class matches. Not bad.--Eva bd 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50 wickets, maybe? Sydney Barnes took 35 @ 10.02 in 1913 Sam Vimes | Address me 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wisden has used, at least in recent decades, a minimum of 10 wickets and that the bowler must have bowled in at least 10 innings. 10 wickets seems very much on the low side, but any bowler who took 10 or more innings to get so few wickets would I suppose have a poor average. JH 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

[edit]

The WP:CRIC standards are clear on how to rate importance. They say that National captains are generally classed as high importance, and players with many tests are generally classed as mid to high importance. King played no Tests, and I'm not sure if he ever captained a US national side. Based on his position as the preeminent American cricketer, though, could he reasonably be upgraded to "High Importance" on the project scale?--Eva bd 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Inevitably there's an element of subjectivity in assigning Importance rankings, but you could argue that MCC's having made him an Honorary Life Member must have meant that they rated him very highly. Also Ralph Barker's including him as one of his 10 Great Bowlers is quite a feather in his cap, plus there's Warner's and other noted cricketers' evaluation of him. JH 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, fair enough. Didn't think "High" encompassed that many players. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no consensus, that's fine. I'm OK with this article remaining as a mid-importance one. I'll make up for it by getting it up to FA. :) --Eva bd 15:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

In the peer review process, someone has raised the point of neutrality. With the work done on this article, I've tried to cite all of my additions using reputable sources. Interestingly, almost all of the sources I've found are complimentary. Can anyone find any that say anything bad about the man?--Eva bd 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of personal taste, it doesn't read very well that the four sentences in the intro have very similar superlatives packed too close together ("one of the greatest American cricketers of all time", "the most prominent player in the United States", "one of the finest bowlers of all time", "He is arguably the greatest of all cricketers to have come from North America "). While we can argue about the semantics, the last of these practically makes the first two redundant (though I think the the last is the least important of the four). For Ramachandra Guha, we should mention the book from which the piece in Picador is taken. Tintin 04:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, all. I'll try and clean up if no one else gets to it first.--Eva bd 04:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go with Tintin for the first paragraph; this paragraph could be one sentence, and in order to make it seem neutral, you could just keep the assessments of other cricketers, without your expressing any opinion. So the lead could be like that:
John Barton "Bart" King (October 19, 1873–October 17, 1965) was an American cricketer, active in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Born in 1873, King was one of the Philadelphian cricketers that played in the period from the end of the 19th century until the outbreak of World War One. Though this period of cricket in the United States was dominated by wealthy gentlemen players, King was an amateur that was able to play based solely on his skill. He was not only a skilled athlete, but was regarded as an amiable individual. His colleagues and opponents regularly commented on his ability to keep everyone around him laughing.[3] Even as he dismissed batsmen he was able to remain friends with them off of the cricket ground. King's place on lists of powerful cricketers is assured by his statistics.
King was a very skilled batsman, but really proved his worth as a bowler. During his career, he set numerous records in North America and at least one first-class bowling record.[4] He competed with and succeeded against the best cricketers in the world from England and Australia. King was the dominant bowler on his team when it toured England in 1897, 1903, and 1908. He dismissed batters with his unique delivery, which he called "the angler," and helped to perfect swing bowling in the sport. Many of the great bowlers of today still use the strategies and techniques that he developed.[5] Sir Pelham Warner described Bart King as one of the finest bowlers of all time[1] , and Donald Bradman called him "America's greatest cricketing son."[2]

  • "Bart King was a very amiable person and was never at a loss for words. Ralph Barker called him the Bob Hope of cricket thanks to his quips and stories. King was noted for always striking the right note–taking jabs at opponents, but leaving them laughing at themselves. He might ask searching questions of an umpire who turned down his appeals–though in a tone that could only cause laughter. On his last English tour he is said to have spoken for ninety minutes at a dinner that were punctuated every few seconds with laughs. While King spoke with a dead-pan expression, the dinner guests nearly collapsed in hysterics. One man that was there noted that King "told his impossible tales with such an air of conviction...that his audiences were always in doubt when to take him seriously. He made their task doubly difficult by sprinkling in a fair mixture of truth with his fiction." All this paragraph is a hagiography of King's character. You know ... It is fine with me! But I'm not sure it is fine with Wikipedia's (sometimes peculiar!) NPOV policy. Maybe if you could keep the tone down a bit in the beginning, starting like that: "Ralph Barker called King the Bob Home of cricket thanks to his wit quips and stories; he was often striking the right ... " Something like that ... in order to avoid strong epithets ("amiable") and adverbs ("never", "always").
  • "According to the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack King proved himself far and away the best bowler on the American side and had to do much of the work." "Far and away" is too much IMO for a Wikipedia article.
  • "It was in this match that King gave "the finest exhibition of skill and endurance which ever came from an American in first-class cricket."[24] I don't know know if it is necessary to repeat in every section that he is the best American cricketer ever. He got that from the lead and the previous section as well.
  • "King was one of the finest bowlers his age, and certainly the finest ever to come from the United States.[30]" Again! I count the same assessment for the fourth or fifth time, I think (3 times in the lead, 1 in "Tour of England in 1897", 1 in "Tour of England in 1903" and one more in this section)! It is getting more a problem of repetition than of POV.

In general, I must say that the POV problems are minor, but they should be fixed, especially when these assessments get repetitive IMO. If we forget these issues, the article in nicely written.--Yannismarou 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack King proved himself far and away the best bowler on the American side and had to do much of the work." "Far and away" is too much IMO for a Wikipedia article. Isn't "far and away" a direct quote from Wisden? If so, it seems fair enough. Looking at King's statistics and his reputation, I don't think that there is any doubt that he was the best ever American cricketer by a wide margin. I accept a line needs to be drawn between emphasising that and being guilty of over-repetition. One minor point about the article: baseball has "batters" but cricket has batsmen. JH 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a quote, but I think it would be best to remove it. The point about repetition is well-received. I'll go through tonight and try to get rid of some of that problem. Thanks for looking things over, all.--Eva bd 21:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that I've covered most of the specific points raised by Yannismarou on the POV issue. If there are any more, then either fix them or post suggestions here, and I will try to fix them. We'll see if there are any other problems on the Peer Review and then we can nominate it for GA status.--Eva bd 14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Batters

[edit]

One minor point about the article: baseball has "batters" but cricket has batsmen. JH 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC) JH, I've done a quick look through and cannot find the instance of confusion on this point. I grew up playing baseball, so I may have reverted back to my youth once or twice while typing. Thanks.--Eva bd 19:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's near the end of the introduction, where you say: "He dismissed batters with his unique delivery..." I suppose that cricket terminology is rather illogical. We say "batsmen" but "bowlers", and "fielders" and "fieldsmen" are both used (though the former is probably more common). JH 20:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I've been playing baseball and softball in the US for 30+ years. Having only picked up the game of cricket in the last year, I still revert to my old habit every now and again. :) --Eva bd 21:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

A nasty piece of proof-reading. Sorry for not fixing some of the things myself. Feeling too lazy :-/

>> Though this period of cricket in the United States was dominated by wealthy gentlemen players, King was an amateur that was able to play based solely on his skill

  • I suppose what is meant is that the players used to be amateurs who found a place in the teams on account of their wealth but King wasn't particularly rich but still played as one. The second half of the sentence is intended to contradict the first, but it doesn't convey that to the reader.

>> During his career, he set numerous records in North America and at least one first-class bowling record.[2]

  • It is not mentioned what this record is. The ref just mentions Neil Cohen's book.

>> King proved his batting worth on a fourth-wicket stand of 109 with John Lester 107 http://cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/4/4791.html

>> In the second innings, King took 5 for 102 a

  • 6/102. Same link as above

>> He bowled three hundred overs more than anyone else and took as many wickets.

  • Not clear what is meant by "as many wickets". It is an exaggeration if it is "as many wickets as everyone else put together" (72 v 121)

>> King scored 447 runs with an average of just over 20

>> He took 2 for 26 against Gloucestershire in the first innings but did not play the second.

  • bowl in the second

>>He also made 7 for 21 and 2 for 28 against a strong MCC side at Lord’s.

>>In the second innings he made 113 and took 3 for 98. Surrey lost the match by 110 runs.

>>He also scored 39 centuries in his first-class career and he topped 1,000 runs in a season six times.

  • You must be talking about league cricket in USA. He scored only one fc 100 (the 113*) and never made 1000.

>>Bart King took all 10 wickets in an innings on three occasions (on five others he took 9 wickets). One of these occasions, against the Gentlemen of Ireland, in 1909 was followed by his taking the hat-trick in the second innings.[32]

  • There is again a little mixup here. 3 10WIs must be in all cricket, while the 10WI v Ireland was in an fc match. So it may be highlighted.

>>A bowler like Yorkshire's George Hirst started to shatter stumps with balls that ducked in with the force of a hard throw in from mid-off.

Great work. Thanks for the review. I'll get to work on this at my earliest convenience.--Eva bd 16:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I think I've heard the "cover point" version too, though it was obviously a piece of hyperbole by whoever originally coined the phrase, since if taken literally it would imply that the ball swung by something of the order of 45 degrees. JH 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks. I think I've addressed all the issues brought up here and on the peer review. Any more ideas?--Eva bd 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this about Hirst's "swerve" (which I think we would nowadays call "swing", in a book by AA Thomson: "He began as a straight fast bowler and only developed his slightly diabolical 'swerve' round about the turn of the century. On his swerving day hardly anyone could play him. His swerver must have been a fearsome ball to deal with; its victims said it came suddenly at you like a fierce throw-in from cover." Yorkshire played the Philadelphians in 1897: Yorkshire v Philadelphians. Although Hirst did not play in that match, I like to imagine that in the nets afterwards King taught him how to bowl the swerver. Unfortunately I've no hard evidence to back it up. JH (talk page) 10:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Mid-off, cover, and cover-point. All we need now is a citation which says that it came from the direction of first slip :-) Tintin 07:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Melville writes that though George Hirst and Albert Relf could swing the ball, only King seemed to have the ability to swing it both ways without losing pace. Tintin 04:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC?

[edit]

As the Peer Review seems to have stalled, I was thinking of putting the article up for Good Article Status. Have I addressed most of the concerns raised here on the talk page and on the Peer Review? Let me know if there are any other glaring problems before I try the GAC process.--Eva bd 15:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should pass GAC easily; the criteria used aren't especially strict. Trebor 16:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been nominated. We'll see what other editors think.--Eva bd 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA shouldn't be a problem, but prose would need more polishing to make it "compelling, even brilliant" before going for an FA, and we may need to bring in a specialist editor for that. Eva, have you seen this article by Tony ? Tintin 03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

[edit]

This is a very nice article. Well-referenced and well written. Kudos.Reddyrov

Thanks for reviewing the article. I'm glad that you liked it. Please feel free to add any relevant information that will help to improve the article.--Eva bd 14:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the assessment. Very nice article. MLilburne 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC?

[edit]

Others have noted that the GAC was going to be no problem. It seems that they were right because two editors have given us a pass on that front. Now, I'd like to push toward Featured Article Candidacy. Tintin made reference to this article by Tony. Based on others' input, the prose will be the largest obstacle to FA status. Does anyone think that there are shortcomings in comprehensiveness, accuracy, neutral, stable, length, or any of the other requirements. Any more input is more than welcome.--Eva bd 13:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Picador is an anthology, can you please also add the name of the book from which the Picador article is taken. Tintin 07:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the tours of England in 1897 and 1903 have sections of their own, shouldn't that in 1908 also have one? JH (talk page) 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, both. I'll get on those right away. Thanks. I've also put a notice for copy-editing on the page and on the league of copy-editors with the idea of getting the prose to be compelling/brilliant.--Eva bd 22:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the points raised above by Tintin1107 and Jhall1, I now have answers. Try as I might, I've not been able to find a hard copy of the Picador book. What I quoted was from a transcription of some information on rec.sport.cricket. Regarding the 1908 series, I don't think that it deserves as much coverage. King seems to have been declining in his allround form, though he did set the bowling average record, I haven't found much more info on specifics. Any other thoughts before this is FACed (after a CopyEdit)?--Eva bd 20:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if information is in short supply for the 1908 tour then there isn't a lot you can do until/unless more turns up. But given King's bowling figures for that tour, I can't agree that it deserves less coverage than the other two if the information can be found. I think it should have a section of its own, even if it has to be shorter than those on the other two tours. JH (talk page) 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point well taken. I'll try to put up a short section on the 1908 tour. I've still got no answer to Tintin's question. Anyone else?--Eva bd 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another American Cricketer

[edit]

Not entirely without interest, I just wanted to let ya'll know that I've started work on another Philadelphian here. If you know of any other source for information, please let me know.--Eva bd 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have Tom Melville's Tented Field. If you need anything from it, just drop me a message. Tintin 01:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The completed article can now be found at John Lester.--Eva bd 00:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that readers of this talk page know, I also made an article for George Stuart Patterson of the Philadelphians.--Eva bd 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High importance

[edit]

I have decided to revert this back to high importance. Whilst the high importance category is usually for national captains and players with many Tests under their belt, I feel there are a few reasons why this article should be considered of high importance.

  • Bart King is by the vast majority of judges considered to be the best cricketer ever produced by the USA, and during his career was considered one of the World's best bowlers. References given in the article back this up, included being named as one of top ten bowlers in 1967.
  • Bart King held the English single-season first-class bowling average record for fifty years.
  • Bart King has held the North American batting record for more than 100 years.
  • He was considered by Plum Warner to be the greatest bowler who ever lived.
  • As detailed in the article, King practically invented modern fast swing bowling. Andrew nixon 21:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already said on the project talk page, you have completely missed the point of the importance ratings. No one is saying King was not an outstanding bowler. It is the importance of this article to the cricket project that matters here. To be classified as high importance, the article must be "fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge". This article is of interest to the project, granted, but it is by no means important and since its subject-matter is specific to a single player, it does not cover a general area of knowledge. The only logical rating according to the current status criteria is low as it is "of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge".
Are you seriously suggesting that an article about this player, who is unknown to the vast majority of cricket fans (unfairly, I agree), is on a par with an article about the England cricket team in the context of a project that is about the whole subject of cricket? You must understand exactly what is the purpose of the importance ratings before you make subjective challenges.
Furthermore, if you intend to alter ratings you are supposed to register as an assessor and you do NOT need to justify your rating on every single talk page (you would never get anything done!). --BlackJack | talk page 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the Cricket Project talk page, fair enough. One complaint though. You say "if you intend to alter ratings you are supposed to register as an assessor" yet the assessment guidelines say "Any member of the cricket WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article." So as far as I can tell, as I am a member of the Cricket WikiProject and I have no intention of rating articles on a regular basis, I am free to rate articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew nixon (talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

First-class performance table

[edit]
  Batting[1] Bowling[2]
Opposition Matches Runs Average High Score 50 / 100 Runs Wickets Average Best 5I / 10M
AM Wood's XI 1 32 32 32 0 / 0 - - - - - / -
Australians 7 133 12.09 45 0 / 0 615 41 15.00 5-22 5 / 0
BJT Bosanquet's XI 2 22 5.50 9 0 / 0 267 23 11.50 8-78 3 / 1
Cambridge University 2 74 18.50 53 1 / 0 303 13 23.30 5-136 1 / 0
Derbyshire 1 14 14.00 14 0 / 0 116 12 9.66 7-28 2 / 1
F Mitchell's XI 2 39 19.50 16 0 / 0 243 20 12.15 7-55 3 / 1
Gloucestershire 2 57 19.00 57 1 / 0 126 4 31.50 2-26 0 / 0
Hampshire 2 129 32.25 52 1 / 0 257 9 28.55 5-110 1 / 0
Ireland 3 56 28.00 54* 1 / 0 214 39 5.48 10-53 4 / 3
Kent 5 213 21.30 47 0 / 0 511 32 15.96 7-39 3 / 0
KS Ranjitsinhji's XI 2 51 12.75 40 0 / 0 191 4 47.75 3-89 0 / 0
Lancashire 2 5 1.66 3 0 / 0 173 16 10.81 9-62 2 / 1
Leicestershire 1 43 21.50 22 0 / 0 180 7 25.71 5-88 1 / 0
Lord Hawke's XI 2 7 2.33 6 0 / 0 186 7 26.57 3-58 0 / 0
Marylebone Cricket Club 7 250 19.23 83 1 / 0 642 38 16.89 7-51 2 / 0
Middlesex 2 43 10.75 22 0 / 0 162 11 14.72 4-19 0 / 0
Northamptonshire 1 34 17.00 34 0 / 0 102 6 17.00 3-51 0 / 0
Nottinghamshire 3 77 15.40 36 0 / 0 363 27 13.44 7-54 2 / 1
Oxford University 2 73 36.50 47 0 / 0 118 9 13.11 8-39 1 / 0
Oxford University Past and Present 1 23 11.50 16 0 / 0 113 5 22.60 4-83 0 / 0
PF Warner's XI 5 230 28.75 68 1 / 0 545 32 17.03 9-25 2 / 1
Somerset 2 49 24.50 24* 0 / 0 137 5 27.40 3-34 0 / 0
Surrey 3 274 54.80 113* 1 / 1 493 19 25.94 6-47 1 / 0
Sussex 1 58 58.00 58 1 / 0 115 13 8.84 7-13 2 / 1
Warwickshire 2 68 22.66 46* 0 / 0 183 12 15.25 7-72 2 / 1
Worcestershire 1 31 15.50 29 0 / 0 88 8 11.00 5-43 1 / 0
Yorkshire 1 49 49.00 49 0 / 0 54 3 18.00 3-54 0 / 0
Overall 65 2134 20.51 113* 8 / 1 6497 415 15.65 10-53 38 / 11

Here you go - place this as you wish. Might be worth checking to make sure I haven't made any glaring errors. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, Ollie. One problem that I see is the very first link. You pipe AM Wood's XI to Arthur Wood (cricketer). I think that you actually want it pointing to Arthur Wood (American cricketer)...which I haven't started yet (but his stats can be seen here). It's on my list of articles to write, and I think I'll boost it farther up the line now. Other than that, a fine job!--Eva bd 13:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the article, but still haven't made Arthur's article.--Eva bd 15:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right about AM Wood. Did you check the other XIs - I piped them mostly by (educated) guess-work. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look, and I think they're alright. Thanks again. Great Job!--Eva bd 17:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the link for Arthur Machin Wood has now gone blue, I've updated the article with the correct link. Thanks.--Eva bd 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "First-class Batting and Fielding Against Each Opponent by Bart King". CricketArchive. Retrieved 2007-04-17.
  2. ^ "First-class Bowling Against Each Opponent Bart King". CricketArchive. Retrieved 2007-04-17.

Gentleman

[edit]

Would the link to this word in the lead of the article be better if it were piped to something like History of English amateur cricket or Gentlemen v Players. These articles would help to get the point of a gentleman cricketer across better than a simple explanation of gentleman. Thoughts?--Eva bd 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman in this context refers to the cricket terminology, so I think a link to History of English amateur cricket is best suited. Andrew nixon 14:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Thanks.--Eva bd 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Gentlemen players" still look an oxymoron :-) Tintin 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether "gentlemen" in an American cricketing context necessarily had the same nuances of meaning that it did in England. JH (talk page) 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did. The USA even had it's own Gentlemen v Players match for a few years. Andrew nixon 16:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be featured?

[edit]

Well, folks. This article has come a long way since I first got my hands on it in January. It has been through a Peer Review, a Good Article Candidacy, and is nearing the completion of another Peer Review. Is there anyone that would have concerns about me listing it as an FAC once the second Peer Review is closed? The one thing that has not yet been addressed from the PR is a chart of King's batting performance. I've lodged a request with Raven4x4x, and have been assured that it is on its way. Other than this, I think I've addressed all major concerns. Any last thoughts before we let the FAC folks take it apart?--Eva bd 16:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the question has been answered as the article is now featured! Thanks, all.--Eva bd 18:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Graph

[edit]

Just in case anyone missed its addition, the new graph of King's batting performance has been added.--Eva bd 13:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swingers

[edit]

As a point of interest GH Hirst of Yorkshire was a contempory of King's who bowled what was called swerve. HI Young of Essex(left arm), also bowled swing. One problem with King is we lack an effective account of him bowling in England though we know he was clearly very effective. The Ralph Barker book is regarded by some as containing its' fair share of slightly dubious stories. King seems to have come in for a few of these(see Lester, Bowen and Mardar) On the matter of importance. He must be regarded as very important in the history of cricket.Longrunup (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder whether King might have shown Hirst how to swing the ball. IIRC, when I checked the scorecard of the only match in which Yorkshire played the Philadelphians, Hirst wasn't playing. It's still possible that Hirst observed King's method, perhaps in the nets, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any evidence of this. JH (talk page) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on swing

[edit]

Before this goes on the main page, the point in the above section needs to be made again. I'm unconvinced by the sourcing for the claims that "King is credited as one of the first bowlers to perfect swing bowling. Other bowlers in his time could sometimes get the ball to swing, but King could do so at will with an old or new ball" and "The impact of King's bowling was very far-reaching. Before King and the Philadelphians toured England, English fast bowlers depended on sheer pace, with a possible last-second application of spin. After seeing King's work with the ball, many became "complete anglers" in the Barton King mold. A bowler like Yorkshire's George Hirst started to shatter stumps with balls that ducked in with the force of a hard throw in from mid-off."

The first is sourced to a "book of cricket" and the second to an article in a publication by a society for baseball research. Neither of these sources seem to be a real authority on the topic. As JH says above, it seems unlikely that Hirst met King. Most contemporary sources, and most others to be honest, credit Hirst with the invention of controlled swing. The article here makes it look like Hirst followed King. It is possible King was the pioneer in 1897, but I've never seen this claim made anywhere else in authoritative sources. Also, his bowling record in 1897, 72 wickets at an average of 24, was pretty feeble by the standards of the time. By his next visit, Hirst had already had some spectacular bowling seasons with swerve and shown what was possible. I suspect King may have been a better bowler, but that is not the point. I think this needs reworking a little before TFA day.

I'll take it out for the moment and reword a little, but anyone who is unhappy can put it back as long as the discussion is continued here. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the "impact" section, and modified the "first bowlers" part. I also wonder about the provenance of the Giffen quote, which makes it appear all the American bowlers used swing, but I've left it for now. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a pre-TFA look at this. If you / others do end up altering the lead, I would be very grateful if you tweak Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 19, 2013 as necessary; that page can be freely edited up to 17th October, and after that you'll need to find a passing admin e.g. through WP:ERRORS. BencherliteTalk 19:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bart King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bart King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA concerns

[edit]

Looking at this one as part of the ongoing FA sweeps. There is some uncited text scattered throughout, some of the stuff in the lead (particularly the quotes) are not in the body, and the reference to G.S. Patterson XI in the infobox is not mentioned in the article body. This one needs a bit of work, but should be fixable. Hog Farm Talk 14:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bart_King&oldid=1207983619"