Talk:William Bedle/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] This is a complete article

Everything that is known about William Bedle, including primary and secondary sources, is already included in this article. His notability, if you wish, is that he is the earliest known great cricketer. As the article contains everything that is currently known of him (notwithstanding the fact that research into early cricket records continue and may yet produce more data), this is a complete article and as such it is class A = complete. It cannot possibly be a stub or even a start or a B when there is absolutely nothing else to be added. --BlackJack | talk page 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely not an A-class article, and Wikipedia would look definitely absurd ratingh this an A-class article. It lacks a relevant image for example, which is a requirement for A-class. If everyone thinks this is A-class, you might as well go for FA. The reviewers there will start laughing so hard they might die. Errabee 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not an A class but it is complete, so it seems. If all we can manage is a stub, then it is a stub, I feel, even if it is complete. Unfortunately it can't be FA at this length on current practice. As for the picture, this is an encyclopedia first and foremost not a children's book, so articles are not judged much on whether there are entertaining pictures or not if there isn't any that are relevant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Sarcasm = infantility. If you can't discuss something without resorting to sarcasm I suggest you stay away from talk pages. See my comments on your own page re what the ratings are actually about and try to understand that there is a clear difference between measures of quality (FA, GA) and completeness (A, B, Start, Stub). Having said that, I'll go along with a B in the biography context but it remains an A in the cricket context. --BlackJack | talk page 05:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
How ironic that someone who doesn't understand how ratings work is so confident that he knows everything and tries to correct someone with tons of experience with rating articles. A-class articles are articles that are better than GA-class in every respect. If you have no intention on going through GA-class, it certainly shouldn't have an A-class rating. Errabee 09:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It may have the complete information on the subject. However, that does not mean that it is an "A-class" article. I would call your attention to a similar article, which also contains everything known about the subject, Pope Soter. That article is currently assessed as a "Stub", despite containing all the known info. The class of the article refers to the quality of the article, not to the relative completeness of it. And, yes, it is certainly possible that a complete article on a subject about which very little is known could never be a real candidate for GA or FA class. That says nothing about the relative completeness of the article in terms of available data, but rather to its completeness relative to other articles. The fact that so very little is known about this subject, as well as Pope Soter, is the reason the rankings are low, not the relative "completeness" of the article. John Carter 18:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I accept what you say, John, but apparently the biography project is using different criteria to the cricket project which follows Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Assessment#Quality_scale and has a completeness scale interleaved with the two quality ratings. We do not have an A-class review either. I do not agree that an article which is complete can be a stub and I would particularly refer you to this guideline about Class A: It must be of a length suitable for the subject (i.e., it can be a very short article if there is limited data available). A stub is something very different and is essentially the bare minimum such as a definition or an overview. --BlackJack | talk page 18:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
True. However, and this is where the difficulty arises, it is hard for an outside reviewer, even assuming good faith, to inherently accept that such a short article must contain all information available. Also, there is the question as to whether articles like Pope Soter, particularly if they are complete, deserve separate articles if that is the extent of them. I note that there are extant articles on Saint Dorothy and Saint Quirinus which have grouped together separate individuals in one article because of the comparative lack of content relavant to each subject. Several projects have attempted to combine such necessarily short articles into longer ones. Possibly in the case of this article, and (maybe?) some of the other earlier players of the game about whom comparatively little is known, a different article entitled "Founders of cricket" or something similar, which might contain the biographical data of several players as well as possibly some information on the details of the game as played at the time, might be the more effective way of presenting this admittedly limited information. John Carter 18:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Attempting to merge articles like this would be entirely wrong in both principle and practise Mr Carter. This man, for instance, is the first cricketer whose biography is known. These early cricketers are major figures in the development of the game and the relative lack of information about them is a function of the times they lived in, not their importance to Cricket. There are plenty of articles shorter than this on other, later, players whose notability is not in doubt.
BlackJack has done sterling work on these early figures, with a great deal of painstaking and meticulous research, and should be applauded, rather than chided for his efforts here. Every player who's played first class and limited overs cricket merits their own article on wikipedia but so should these players from the days before first class cricket was formalised. Thanks to Blackjack, Wikipedia is becoming perhaps the best source on the web for such information. I would respectfully suggest that Blackjack knows rather more about this subject than either of us and that he's left to get on with completing this work without having to waste time with anymore slightly ill informed discussions such as these. There are articles on the formation of early cricket on wikipedia, but that doesn't mean these individuals don't merit their own piece for a moment. Wikipedia is not paper. Nick mallory 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(←) We seem to be getting a little way off the point here. An interesting point has been raised as to whether the length of an article is a measure of its quality. Given that (for example) WP:WIAFA demands completeness and not merely length, I see no reason that this cannot be rated as "A", at least within the scope of WP:CRIC. Since these ratings are only a tool for interested editors, what WP:WPBIO does is similarly up to them. It's a non-issue really. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, provided the rest of the criteria are met as well, which include table of contents, lead section, images, and so on, as per the WP:WIAFA page. The only point I would like to make, or rather repeat, is that personally I think that our goals are not only to create good, high quality articles, but also to, at least in part, get as many of those articles as possible up to FA class or similar, so that the work can be displayed, publicized, and recognized. As has been stated, this article is, by current rules, unlikely to ever even receive consideration for such status. My primary work is with Saints, not cricket, but I have noticed the two articles I mentioned which are "collected" biographies, and I do believe that articles like them, and, for instance, Martyrs of Cordoba, a similar "collection", would stand a much bettter chance of getting GA or FA recognition, which does seem to at least encourage articles of greater length (if nothing else) than this one. There is and was no intention of criticizing the quality of the work, of denigrating the content, or of saying that "these individuals don't merit their own piece". It was simply a statement that those separate pieces could be collected into a longer piece (if similar necessarily short biographies exist on other cricketers), which would stand a much better chance at GA or FA recognition. And it would certainly be possible to create a redirect for each individual biography which would link to the "collected" article, possibly even to the specific section relating to that individual. John Carter 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Apart from all the other obvious deficiencies like picture or in-line refs that inhibit A-class for the biography project, this article is very poorly written as well. Take for instance this sentence: He was then approaching seventy, yet he lived on for almost another twenty years, finally dying in his own home at the ripe old age of 88. This is definitely not encyclopedic language, and furthermore original research, superfluous (our readers can do the math themselves), and the only thing remotely worth keeping is that he died in his own house. The sentence The primary source is Lloyd's Evening Post dated 10 June 1768 is also not encyclopedic, and only accessible to people familiar with Wikipedia, as others might not know (or care) what primary sources are. What is interesting is what did Lloyd's Evening Post write exactly. An obituary, I presume? I furthermore doubt very much that Buckley would write the first great player in cricketing annals, so this looks like original research as well. I am going to downgrade this to Start-class for biography. Errabee 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a complete article but this talk page is a complete joke. The biography rating of the article is up and down like a yo-yo despite the expert attention of an experienced and knowledgeable assessor like Errorbee. First, by using his systematic, structured, analytical approach to rating that is based on firm standards, he rates it a stub. Then, one knee-jerk later, it rockets up to B. Now, after his expert scrutiny of the quoted references, he is alleging original research and down it goes to start. Original research? He grows ever more tedious by the minute.
Okay, I will hold my hand up to the fact that, due to oversight, one of the main sources was not listed and that is the Dartford CC site. Some of the wording of the article was quoted from the club site and I have now included the club as an external link.
Finally, I'm quite sure that most people who read an encyclopaedia are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know what is meant by a primary source and, in my view, to suggest that readers would not know is condescending, rude and arrogant. --BlackJack | talk page 19:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Name calling, are we? Just shows how grown up you really are, and how serious we should take your comments. Selective memory also helps in these cases. Errabee 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Erm, pot? Kettle?. I'm sure you've both got more constructive things to be doing than bickering here - perhaps you should go and get on with them. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember ever calling BlackJack names. So, no pot, but indeed a kettle. And this bickering has cost me more than enough time indeed. Errabee 06:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Selective memory is hardly required when Wikipedia's own audit trail details the progress of events. The problem began when I altered the biography rating from stub to A. Kerrabee reverted it and BlackJack reinstated it, giving a reasonable explanation in the opening message of this thread. Whereupon Kerrabee retorted with a sneering comment about people dying laughing and it has all unravelled from there. I believe Kerrabee should learn how to conduct himself rationally when taking part in a discussion and show respect for other people's views. If he wants people to respect his views he must first respect their views, which does not mean he has to agree with them. For example, while I do not agree with everything that John Carter has written above, I have great respect for him and his views because of the reasonable and constructive way in which he has expressed himself.
As for why I altered the rating, the article carries the "notstub" tag so the biography rating was inconsistent with that. I made the incorrect assumption that each project uses the same criteria. I have been reading a few different versions this morning and clearly each project goes its own way within a broad framework. So I apologise for scoring this an A but, unlike Kerrabee, I acted in good faith and am prepared to admit that I was mistaken. I have amended the biography rating to B. The article cannot be rated stub and equally it cannot be a start when it has no scope for further development, so it must be rated B given that the biography project's extra criteria militate against an A. I am assuming, incidentally, that the article is now complete and that there are no other missing sources besides Dartford Cricket Club? --GeorgeWilliams 06:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, more name calling. Is this the standard in the Cricket Project? Errabee 08:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)