Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Peer review/History of cricket

History of cricket edit

The article has been rated start-class but the only one of the B-class criteria it failed on is the need for inline citations. These can be supplied but I would like a peer review to see if anyone can suggest other improvements. As this is one of the project's "flagship" top-importance articles, we ought to be aiming well beyond B-class. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 04:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not especially familiar with A class criteria, but it really could do with a decent Lead section, per WP:LEAD. Four paragraphs would probably be appropriate, somehow managing to summarise the key themes! Lol! --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section dealing with the future should be removed. Not only is it a breach of WP:CRYSTAL, it's off-topic. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a first reading my concerns are to do the comprehensiveness of the article. There is an overwhelming focus on cricket in England (somewhat understandable given it was played nowhere else for some time) and cricket elsewhere seems included as an afterthought as it were. What seems to me to be undue weight is given to the period where cricket was a pastime and a vehicle for gambling in areas of southern England and little weight attached to the period where it is a mass spectator sport followed by hundreds of millions. The development of Test cricket and the ICC is barely discussed; the shift in cricket's "centre of gravity" to the sub-continent is only touched upon when discussing Twenty/20. There is little or no mention of cricket's role in post-colonial identity in places such as Australia, India and the West Indies.

Don't get me wrong, the content on the early history of cricket is fascinating and to my mind, well written. So much so, I think it deserves an article of its own, freed from the burden of supporting an article that carries the comprehensive title of "History of cricket". Given the above, my early thoughts are:

Remove all content relating to cricket post 1860 (an arbitrary date I know, but can be justified given it was around that time that Grace appeared, international tours started, Wisden, overarm bowling etc.)
Rename the resulting article Early history of cricket
Expand the article with a focus on two main items;
- The development of the laws, techniques and equipment of the game from its beginnings to what would be recognisable as cricket today; and
- The development of organised cricket (clubs, championships etc.) which the article at present does quite well.
Create a new article with the title "History of cricket", written in summary style with a comprehensive focus on cricket worldwide.

I don't mean to appear too critical and I also don't wish to offend anyone; I think the article is well written, encyclopedic and informative and the contributors should be congratulated. I have no real concerns with the content as it is; however I feel an article entitled History of cricket should be comprehensive and cover cricket on a worldwide basis. I am aware this seems rather drastic and doesn't provide much helpful advice about improving the article as it stands. I am also aware that creating an article along the lines I am suggesting is a major task. I am happy to discuss concerns or points raised here if you wish. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1789 cancelled tour of France, by John Sackville, is missing OrangeKnight (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with the idea of focusing on the development of laws, techniques, etc, and of organised cricket, but don't understand why it should be renamed early history of cricket : history of cricket is history of cricket, it should : deal with these development and sum up the history from the origins to nowadays. OrangeKnight (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue that concentrating on the early history is justifiable, because the more recent history is covered in other, more specific, articles. If all the more recent history was covered in depth, this article could become impossibly long. But those other articles (eg the ones on early Test cricket history) should have "See also" prominent links within this article. JH (talk page) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]