User talk:Harrias/Archive 13
Peer ReviewHi, I had listed this article for peer review. Your suggestions are most welcome. —Commander (Ping me) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC) FIRST CLASSPrior to 1947 the best list is the ACS guide which can still be obtained from them in Cardiff. There was no definition and there are several anomalies - sometimes caused by the unavailability of overseas scores before 1940 which caused Wisden to miss out matches. Also before 1940, Wisden rated some matches such as Brazil-Argentina as f-c then suddenley didn't. The ACS book is the best guide. Post 1947 it was for the homer board to decide. TMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.82.253 (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC) DYKHey Harrias, stumbled onto your list at DYK, reviewed it, gave it the thumbs up. One thing I did notice (because I'm sure this is FLC-bound!) is that you have four dab links: Rushell, Ellesmere, Carlisle and Philadelphia Quakers. Probably best to sort them out when you get a moment. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Harry LeeI can chip in at the A class review if you like, but I'm not too sure I can add anything that I have not already said, and I cannot really assess the military side, which I believe was your intention. I can chime in with a support at the end if that helps, as it certainly meets the criteria, but is there anything more constructive I could do? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportHello if women's sports fascinate you: WikiProject Women's sport and Portal:Women's sport, --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC) DYK for List of National Hockey League players from the United Kingdom
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC) DYK nominationHi, just letting you know that I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Ice hockey in the United Kingdom and there is a problem with an unsourced claim. Cheers, BigDom 16:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Ice hockey in the United Kingdom
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC) DYK for Oxford Canadians
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Template talk:Infobox cricketer
Hey Harrias, thanks for all your comments at the subject FLC. I believe we've addressed the issues you've raised, I'm sure you're busy, but this is just a polite nudge to say cheers and look forward to seeing your responses to our attempts to resolve the comments you made. Ta! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC) List of india ODI cricketers![]() You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. I am looking forward to your suggestions. whenever you have some time please take a look at the article.--Vyom25 (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
First-class status: late replyHi Harrias. This is about your question to me way back on 17 December. Sorry, but I've been working abroad for several weeks including Christmas and haven't had any time for being online. I'm just catching up with WP today. However, I think I can offer an answer re citations if you look at Variations in first-class cricket statistics#Concept and definition of first-class cricket. The sources quoted there from the ACS, Harry Altham and Simon Rae are as good as any. Simon Rae discusses the problems of WG's first-class matches in some detail and is, I think, the best source to quote here. I hope this helps if you haven't already found the answers elsewheere but let me know if I can be of more use. All the best. ----Jack | talk page 13:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC) WikiCup 2012 January newsletter![]() WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20. A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition. A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Hi, can you comment on this FLC. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC) BothamThanks for the kind words. I think Botham would is a great one to work on and probably very interesting. I suspect your main problem may be an independent overview of his career: a lot of the info on Botham comes from either the man himself or from starry-eyed "wasn't he wonderful!" types. To be honest, I'm not a fan of ITB; I dislike him as a commentator and consider him over-rated as a player, although he was very, very good until about 1982. But that's just my view, and I may be biased because he wasn't born in God's-Own-County! On the matter of length, it is probably better to get it all down and then cut back later, and as you say, I think a 1981 article definitely has legs if you need to go down that route. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, is there a free image available for him? —Vensatry (Ping me) 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Omari BanksHarrias, I believe that you flagged a potential conflict on my posts on the Omari Banks page. Please let me know what your specific concerns are. I believe everything cited by me clearly identified the source. I didn't delete anything negative on there so I'm not sure what your concern is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaidebanks (talk • contribs) 12:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC) WikiCup 2012 February newsletter![]() Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design. The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia