# Talk:Richard Newland (cricketer)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Newland. 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/20110629140138/http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1741.html#newlandr to http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1741.html#newlandr
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Newland (cricketer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 08:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll review this one. I hope to have may initial assessment ready soon. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I had a first look. I spotted various minor problems but nothing too serious. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Phlsph7, and thank you for doing this review which is very thorough and will certainly help to improve the article. I'm mostly unavailable for editing at present because I'm extremely busy in RL but I'm trying to look at the watchlist every few days. Fortunately, I should have time to spare over the weekend and, as there doesn't seem to be anything major in the points you have raised, I should be able to attend to everything over the next couple of days. I hope that's okay and I will try to get back to you soon. All the best. BcJvs | talk UTC 11:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I've made a start per the answers below and will keep coming back but I must go for now. BcJvs | talk UTC 11:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for starting the review at an inconvenient time. I only saw the message on your userpage afterwards. I'm not in hurry to get this review finished as long as it doesn't get forgotten altogether. Just ping me when you've responded to the points raised. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely no problem, Phlsph7, but thank you for your consideration. I'm keeping a watch for reviews as I have this one and another in the GAN queue and I don't want a reviewer to waste their time by me not being observant. Anyway, I think your review is excellent because it has enabled me to greatly improve the article and I'm glad you spotted my oversights, especially the two citation collections I had at the end of two paragraphs. I've made changes to the article and they are all explained in the comments below. When you have time, if you could take another look and then let me know if you need anything else, that would be much appreciated. Thank you again and all the best. BcJvs | talk UTC 13:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
That was faster than expected. I think all the points have been addressed and I didn't spot any additional problems. I'll pass it. Thanks for being so responsive. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I managed to find some time this morning while we've had to wait for a delivery – which is still on its way, ha! Thank you very much, Phlsph7, for a comprehensive review. The article is much better after your help. Best wishes. BcJvs | talk UTC 14:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


### Prose
No longer able to play himself, Richmond channelled his enthusiasm for cricket into patronage of Slindon Cricket Club.: add "the" or "his" before "patronage"
Done.
Next day he wrote again...: add "The" before "Next day".
Done.
The Artillery Ground in Finsbury was the feature venue of English cricket in the 1740s.: I haven't heard the term "feature venue" before. Is there a more common term.
"Feature" is a bit of an exaggeration as there were other notable venues. I've changed it to "regular".
who organised a number of games between his own team and one picked by Newland.: drop the redundant "own"
Done.
It was impacted by bad weather and Slindon led by two runs at close of play: add "the" before "close"
Done.
The term "threes match" is mentioned several times. I assume it means the same as "three-a-side match", i.e. each team has three members. Do we need to explain this in a footnote or would this be clear to the average reader?
I doubt if most readers would readily understand it so I've changed all instances of threes to three-a-side match and all of fives to five-a-side match.
It is known from the report of the threes match that Newland had played for England: Do we need the long introductory clause "It is known from the report of the threes match that" or can it be removed?
Removed and reworded.
David Underdown researched the histories of both Slindon and the Newland family. He discovered that an ancestor called John Newland was a steward in the local manor house at the end of the sixteenth century. Do we need the first sentence about David Underdown or can we just say "According to David Underdown, an ancestor..."?
Done. According to is better.
Newland had issued a challenge, by means of a notice in the Daily Advertiser, that Slindon: What about replacing "by means of" with "through" and dropping the commas before and after that phrase?
Reworded. Much better sentence now.
He named four outstanding 18th century players as examples: I think it should be a hyphen between "18th" and "century" since it's used as an adjective
It is an adjective. Hyphen added.
Some cases MOS:WTW. Maybe they can be solved by attributing the claims to someone who made them.
Although he was an outstanding all-rounder: outstanding
Changed to "recognised". Sources do say he was a great player and so on but it is a WTW and we're better without it.
Slindon's best bowler was Edward Aburrow Sr: best
Reworded whole sentence.
even though Aburrow was his best bowler at Slindon: best
Reworded to say he played as a bowler and gave his alias.


### Sources
WP:EARWIG shows no copyright problems.
Each paragraph has references.
User:Headbomb/unreliable marks three sources as unreliable. But this is because they link to Amazon pages and the books themselves are reliable.
This can be a problem as Amazon only keep their ASIN while they have the item in stock. I've removed all three ASINs. None of these books have ISBNs.
Newland was out without scoring in both innings. The scorecard was kept by the 2nd Duke of Richmond at Goodwood House.[33][34][35][36][37]: WP:OVERCITE. Consider bundling them or removing some if not all of them are necessary.
My apologies for this. I think I must have collected all citations for the paragraph and forgot to apportion them. Have done that now. Maun is fairly comprehensive for the paragraph but the others are more selective.
Sackville's catch may have been the defining moment of the match, which Kent won by one wicket after Cutbush and Hodsoll managed to score the remaining few runs with nine wickets down.[38][39][40][41][42][43]: same here
As above.


#### Spotcheck
Next day he wrote again, saying that "wee (sic) have beat Surrey almost in one innings".[18]: supported by McCann page 21.
As mentioned below, I've added the slindon.com site as an extra.
"its chief players were the Messrs Newland – Adam, John and Richard – and Cuddy (Aburrow)".: supported by ref 31. However, the quote is not 100% accurate (were vs being): "its chief players being the Messrs. Newland – Adam, John and Richard – and Cuddy". I'm not sure what to do about the "(Aburrow)": it's needed for the reader to connect it the earlier text but it's not part of the quote. It could be moved outside the quote right after "Cuddy" or this nickname could be mentioned earlier in relation to Aburrow.
I've made the quote verbatim and provided Cuddy as the alias for Aburrow on first mention (as above).
Richard Newland was born in 1713 (exact date unconfirmed) at Slindon, Sussex. His parents were Richard Newland Sr of Slindon and Elizabeth Newland (née Hammond) of Eartham, Sussex.: supported by ref 1. Ref 5 (www.slindon.com) has no information on this and should probably be removed.
My apologies. I cited the Slindon village site instead of the church one which seems to be its sister. Can you please check that this is okay now.
Two of Newland's brothers, John (1717–1800/1804) and Adam (born 1719), also became well-known cricketers.: supported by ref 1.  Ref 5 also has no information on this.
As above. The church site is the correct one.
Concerning ref 5: it should probably point to "https://www.slindon.com/history/cricket-in-slindon/" and not to "www.slindon.com". By even then, it does not support the two claims above.
I think I've resolved this by correcting the village/church sites error. The village site does have the "wee beat Surrey" item so I've used it as an additional source for that.
She mentions a conversation with John Newland about a Slindon versus East Dean match played a week earlier at Long Down, near Eartham. supported by ref 9. The URL of ref 9 should changed from "https://archive.acscricket.com/cricket/1900/57/index.html" to "https://archive.acscricket.com/cricket/1900/74/index.html".
Corrected.


### Others
The lead is a little short and could be expanded a little. From what I can tell, the subsection "Newland's reputation in the 1740s" is only a summary and repeats some information from the following sections. Would it make sense to move some of this information into the lead and the rest into the following subsections?
This is a good point. I've abandoned the reputation section and moved everything elsewhere. There are some extra pieces that should have been in the lead before – his record score, being proclaimed "The Champion", Richard Nyren, and being one of Ashley-Cooper's four greats. Can you think of anything else for the lead?
The article coverage is broad. However, the text here talks about "the famous match in 1740 when an all-England team was beaten by “poore little Slyndon ... in almost one innings”". Should this be mentioned in the article?
It was in the Duke of Richmond section with McCann as the source. This is where I've added the slindon.com site as an extra.
For the subsection "The Duke of Richmond: patronage and paradox": Is all this detail really relevant enough to be included? My feeling is that this should be cut down by half.
I agree much of it wasn't directly relevant to Newland himself but we need to recognise the importance of Richmond to Newland's career so I've reduced the section to a single paragraph which briefly explains Richmond's commitment to Slindon. Although he doesn't mention anyone by name in his letters to Pelham, the inference is that Newland was involved in the matches and, as mentioned in the background piece, was no stranger to violence.
The article uses 3 images, 2 published under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license and 1 in public domain
That was my assessment too. There are no surviving images of Newland personally so I tried to use ones that are as relevant as possible.
In the source section, the URLs "https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001UKTUTG" and "https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005W0SAWS" are broken and should probably be replaced or removed
As mentioned earlier, I've removed the ASINs as the books may now be out of stock at Amazon.
The article includes many duplicate wikilinks (see MOS:DUPLINK): Captain, Artillery Ground, Surrey, Sussex, London, Goodwood House, James Love, Bromley, Dartford, Richard Nyren, Hambledon Club, John Frame.
My apologies, I should have checked those before. I think I've got them all now, but could you please re-check.
Phlsph7 (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)