# Talk:Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics

I think this would make a great Did You Know. Does anyone know how to do this? Probably no one watches this page though, so I may try to find out elsewhere. Verbal chat 11:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it would, but it doesn't meet the DYK criteria, as it isn't new, nor has it been expanded fivefold from a stub. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Excellent article, very interesting and well written. I'm aware that you are probably busy so I've tweaked any minor issues I saw rather than listing them here. Feel free to revert anything that doesn't work. 

"Neither team was nationally selected": I quite like this phrase (lead and main body), but is there any way to tweak it to include that they were not representative as well? If not, no problem.
"The British side was a touring club team": A little clumsy; why not simply "touring club" or "touring team".
Not a big deal, but "retrospectively formally recognised " is a little cumbersome, but I realise all the words are sort of necessary. I tweaked the main body but not sure about lead.
Very minor, but cricinfo links are showing as redirects since it changed to "espncricinfo.com".
Any images available for any of this, it would really help if at all possible.
All refs check out.
I'll not even bother putting this on hold. If you are too busy to do much, I'll put it on hold in a couple of days, but there's very little to do. Hopefully a future FAC? I imagine it might go down quite well. It's almost a shame the article isn't "Cricket at the Olympics"! --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review: I've tweaked the language where you've mentioned it (I took retrospectively out completely, it seemed redundant). Also fixed the cricinfo links. Harrias talk 16:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
All good, passing now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I have added a photo of the venue. extra999 (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been suggested at the now-closed AfD of Cricket at the Summer Olympics that this article be merged into the aforesaid article, since it can cover the events of the 1900 Olympics plus other historical detail, such as the future of the sport in the Olympics. Any thoughts by those knowledgeable about the subject? -- Pingumeister(talk) 12:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth it. This is a comprehensive Good article that would have to be reduced in quality to slot into that article. I don't think there is an issue with the way they sit alongside each other, presenting their own information. Harrias talk 13:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it correct to refer to the team as Great Britain rather than England? If the match at the time was advertised as between England and France, surely it is more correct to refer to the team as England and not Great Britain. Mallon in “History of the Early Olympics, 2. The 1900 Olympic Games. Results for all competitors in all events with commentary” (ISBN 978-0-7864-4064-1) vacillates between the two eventually writing ENGLAND (Great Britain). With the only contemporary record showing France v. England, should the references to Great Britain be removed as this appears to be the work of later historians. Nicolas.hammond (talk)

When I see that right then there is no source given for the Scorecard. Cricinfo has one and has there two runs for George Buckley in the first Innings. This would also explain the inconsistency of footnote a. So there might be the discussion to change the scorecard appropriately.--Maphry (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The sourced scorecards have been updated in the years since this article was written, both ESPNcricinfo and Cricket Archive are cited in the article, and both have updated to add those two runs for Buckley, thanks for spotting that; I've updated it in the article now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)