Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Harvey family/archive1

Harvey brothers edit

5 articles

GTN. There were six cricketing brothers in the family, and 4 qualify for a autobio, the others didn't reach top-flight competition. Despite the name, this article is about the cricketing brothers rather than the extra bits about grandsons and grand-daughters although if this raises too many hackles I could always rename the article as I don't intend on going into any depth (ie more than a sentence) on the grandchildren who played football or the daughter who played softball for Australia. In any case I don't see any sources for softball in the 1960s at all this sport is never in any newspapers (and there are no online stats databases) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Aaroncrick ^TALK 03:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not rename the main article "... in cricket"? Nergaal (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is rather cumbersome. If people complain too much, then I'd prefer brothers, and in the context of a sporting combination, the cricket brothers played together in the same team for 20+ years, whereas their descendants did not YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, particularly if you can get rid of the bit in the above template saying {{{column3}}}. Harrias ^talk 06:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. --Pres N 16:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Sarastro1 (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I would also prefer "Harvey brothers" as the name of the main article (and please, get rid of some of those endless strings of references, and of the column3).~~ Ucucha 08:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any direct refs for those so citing the whole season's scorecards to add things up is the way it has to be done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fair enough; great work on this set. Ucucha 06:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as the topic name (and preferably the main article also) is "X brothers". "X family" is too general and I am guessing there is another person (unrelated to the brothers) with this last name out there notable enough to get an article at some point, in which case the name of that article would be problematic. Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved per consensus YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the articles look quite solid. NW (Talk) 16:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work YM. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid work. Courcelles 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Good work as always! Harrias ^talk 11:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC) – Apparently I'd already given this my support, way up there! Going dotty! Harrias ^talk 06:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to promote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]