# Talk:E. W. Bastard

This review is transcluded from Talk:E. W. Bastard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
A good piece of work. I've done a quick copy-edit and cleared up a few points. Also, I cut a few phrases I thought were unnecessary. Anything you aren't happy with, feel free to revert. Just a few questions before I pass:

"often said to be the university's best ever": Said by who?
This is a difficult one, because Bolton says that it is often said.. but I seem to recall something in Altham and Swanton.
I've changed this slightly, and reffed Altham and Swanton. Harrias talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"placed him among the 20 most prolific bowlers in the country": In terms of average or number of wickets?
Wickets: I tend to figure that "prolific" signifies quantity, but I can see that it's still ambiguous, I'll clean up.
Changed to "among the 20 most prolific wicket-takers in the county" - does that make it clearer? Harrias talk 20:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"along with the acquisitions of Ted Tyler and George Nichols": Acquisition or acquisitions (I'm not sure here).
I'd say plural; they came from different sources at different times.
The matches against OUCC first team: were they trial games or practice games?
No idea, I only have the CricketArchive scorecards for them; they aren't mentioned in Bolton.
Bolton blamed the weather for the loss: did it rain? If so, maybe mention the sticky wicket.
I've expanded upon this a bit: feel free to tidy the language. Harrias talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"in 1884 as part of the team which has often been described as Oxford's best ever.": Described by who?
As above.
"scored 52 runs in "quick time"" Attribution in text is needed.
Wasn't too keen on this looking back at it: have changed to simply "scored 52 runs quickly," Harrias talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"Bastard "bowled with great skill on the last morning"" Again, needs attribution.
Added. Harrias talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"Somerset could only field nine men in the fixture": How did that happen? (Sorry, I've got to ask!)
I can't give you a cited answer. I guess slightly more than I probably should in the Somerset County Cricket Club in 1885 article: I think probably a combination of their poor form, and bad luck.
Everything else checks out.
I won't bother to put this on hold unless you haven't been able to get to it before tomorrow evening. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've offered a few quick replies, and will fix what I can in a bit. Harrias talk 20:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
All fine now, good to go. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)