# Talk:Chris Benham

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chris Benham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807124018/http://www.rosebowlplc.com/news/Hampshire-Cricket-Part-Company-with-Chris-Benham/ to http://www.rosebowlplc.com/news/Hampshire-Cricket-Part-Company-with-Chris-Benham/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chris Benham/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: AssociateAffiliate (talk · contribs) 22:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: JustJamie820 (talk · contribs) 06:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Table:

Personal Comments:
Lead:

It's a short lead at two sentences.  Can a third sentence be added that describes his playing style or highlights important stats or awards?
Done (I hope!). Have expanded to emphasise that he was a batsman, that he scored 2 first-class and 4 one-day centuries, and talked summarised what he did after the end of his professional playing career. AA (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Loughborough is mentioned as an MCCU in the lead but a UCCE in the body.
Done. Good spot, have changed to UCCE, as it was known when he played for Loughborough. AA (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Early life and career:

Is teachweb a reliable source?  I honestly can't tell based on the archived page.
Done. Have found a more reliable source. AA (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Establishing...:

Link the first mention of "Pro40" to either its 2006 campaign or to the competition itself.  Also, it may not be immediately clear that the pro/rel match was in 2006's Pro40, since the match is mentioned before you discuss the league it's for.
Done. Have linked to the 2006 and 2007 competitions. AA (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
"Dropped midway through":  Explain the 'drop' a little more.  I know it's from the first eleven/starting eleven (what is the proper British English term for the playing squad in cricket, anyway?), but it took a while to realize that.
Done. Have reworded to read: "However, he lost his place in the team midway through May to accommodate Michael Carberry, who was returning from injury"; think that is much more self-explanatory for the reader than "dropped". AA (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Decline...:

You mention a "maiden first-class century" against Loughborough Univ. and another one against Durham.  The latter can't be a maiden ton as well.
Done. Have claified that his maiden century was for Loughborough and that his subsequent century for Hampshire was his only one for the county. AA (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
...After Hampshire:

"The Unicorns was an ad hoc team": "were an ad hoc team"
Done. AA (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
"Minor counties cricket" and "Minor Counties Championship" currently link to the same page.
Done. Now links to both articles accordingly. AA (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Suggestions:
Infobox:

CricketArchive says that Benham also represented the Hampshire CB in the MCCA Knockout Trophy (then under a different name) in 1999 and 2000.
Done. I have decided to include this in the section where the HCB is discussed. Though I have not linked minor counties cricket here, as the HCB was not a true minor county and having it linked nearer to Wiltshire seems more appropriate. AA (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
It may be useful to explain why Hampshire and Hampshire CB are different teams.
Done. I have added a note explaining what they are and why they are different. Would have liked to have found a reference to them playing up to the 2003 competition, but can't seem to find any news article documenting the dropping of the cricket board's from the competition after the 2003 edition. AA (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Headings:

The "Cricket" heading can probably be removed in favor of everything in that heading moved up a level.  That way, mentions of birth dates, schooling, and a post-cricket career aren't out of place.
Comment. I have changed "Cricket" to "Life" - I think the sub-headers look more asthetically pleasing, but do agree that "Cricket" was too general. What do you think now? AA (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Hyperlinks:

Possibly link "Second Eleven" in the "Establishing..." section.
Done. Have linked to Second XI Championship. AA (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
There are multiple instances of linking past the first mention in the body.  Gloucs is duplicated in par. 2 in "Establishing..." and Sussex is in par. 1 of "Decline...", along with the previous mention of the minor counties.
Done. Another good spot, all fixed! AA (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Summary:

There may be a few minor grammatical things I missed, and I wasn't sure if linking every year of a competition was valuable (I didn't want to be *too* pedantic), but those are the main things I saw.  Everything else is solid, to the point, and pretty complete.  Once the small(ish) issues are taken care of, I will happily give the article the much-vaunted green plus sign.  Thank you for reading this.
(Update:)  I forgot to mention earlier that I checked a lot of the sources (about half of them), and they were used correctly.  (Thank CMD for telling me to do so!)  This includes the new Yateley source, which turns the reliable source icon green.  A fuller re-read of the article is pending. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
(Update 2:)  Thanks for itemizing the changes.  I have flipped one more section to green (probably should've anyway) as a result.  I'm now really torn about whether the lead should be longer; MOS:LEADLENGTH says that 100 words or more is preferable, though it is not a requirement according to the MOS, and is probably a really pedantic thing to be held up about.  All I know is that it still feels short to me. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
@JustJamie820 please find above my responses! I have expanded the lead. And no worries, always nice for reviewers to have an itemised list of changes as and when they are done. AA (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
@AssociateAffiliate:  Nailed it.  The lead is exactly what I wanted it to be, and I appreciate you looking at and taking in my suggestions.  The last things are now flipped from gray to green, so, assuming I've done it correctly, the plus sign is yours...and Benham's.  :-) -- JustJamie820 (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)