Talk:Bart King

message: This might just be my personal taste, but the sentences look a bit short and choppy in some places (one sentence starts with "but" for example). It's not quite an A article for reasons of length (there should be a bit more to write on a ten-year career) and language, but it's a good starting point. Sam Vimes | Address me 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also give it a B-Class rating, but I think with a bit of work and a lot of expansion on his career, you can at least put it through WP:GAC. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the assessments, folks. As time permits, I'll try to flesh out the article based on your suggestions and any others that come in. This wikipedia business really eats up your time if you let it.--Eva bd 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Some people have posted information on the rec.sports.cricket newsgroup regarding Bart King. It can be found here, here, here, and here. I'm going to try adding extra information into this article, but anyone else is welcome to help, as well.--Eva bd 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also see here and here for more information. You can see my working draft of the article here.--Eva bd 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent work. :) I've reworded one sentence, as it originally read rather as though it was Belmont who toured England in 1908, rather than the Philadelphians. JH 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: It was during his time with Belmont, in 1908, that King topped the England bowling averages with the extraordinary figure of 11.01. This was not bettered until 1958 when Les Jackson of Derbyshire posted an average of 10.99.[9] 
What is the cut-off for inclusion in this list ? King did not take 100 wkts (he took 87), so I guess it is something else (like we have 8 completed innings criterion for batting). Tintin 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no universally agreed cut-off. However all the figures that I've seen used are far short of 100 wickets. (Which is just as well, since with the reduced f-c programme of recent years 100 wickets is now rarely reached.) JH 18:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those 87 wickets came in only 10 first class matches. Not bad.--Eva bd 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 50 wickets, maybe? Sydney Barnes took 35 @ 10.02 in 1913 Sam Vimes | Address me 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wisden has used, at least in recent decades, a minimum of 10 wickets and that the bowler must have bowled in at least 10 innings. 10 wickets seems very much on the low side, but any bowler who took 10 or more innings to get so few wickets would I suppose have a poor average. JH 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut-off for records

message: The WP:CRIC standards are clear on how to rate importance. They say that National captains are generally classed as high importance, and players with many tests are generally classed as mid to high importance. King played no Tests, and I'm not sure if he ever captained a US national side. Based on his position as the preeminent American cricketer, though, could he reasonably be upgraded to "High Importance" on the project scale?--Eva bd 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Inevitably there's an element of subjectivity in assigning Importance rankings, but you could argue that MCC's having made him an Honorary Life Member must have meant that they rated him very highly. Also Ralph Barker's including him as one of his 10 Great Bowlers is quite a feather in his cap, plus there's Warner's and other noted cricketers' evaluation of him. JH 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, fair enough. Didn't think "High" encompassed that many players. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no consensus, that's fine. I'm OK with this article remaining as a mid-importance one. I'll make up for it by getting it up to FA. :) --Eva bd 15:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: One minor point about the article: baseball has "batters" but cricket has batsmen. JH 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's near the end of the introduction, where you say: "He dismissed batters with his unique delivery..." I suppose that cricket terminology is rather illogical. We say "batsmen" but "bowlers", and "fielders" and "fieldsmen" are both used (though the former is probably more common). JH 20:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I've been playing baseball and softball in the US for 30+ years. Having only picked up the game of cricket in the last year, I still revert to my old habit every now and again. :) --Eva bd 21:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baseball Batters

message: A nasty piece of proof-reading. Sorry for not fixing some of the things myself. Feeling too lazy :-/
>> Though this period of cricket in the United States was dominated by wealthy gentlemen players, King was an amateur that was able to play based solely on his skill
*I suppose what is meant is that the players used to be amateurs who found a place in the teams on account of their wealth but King wasn't particularly rich but still played as one. The second half of the sentence is intended to contradict the first, but it doesn't convey that to the reader.
>> During his career, he set numerous records in North America and at least one first-class bowling record.[2]
*It is not mentioned what this record is. The ref just mentions Neil Cohen's book.
>> King proved his batting worth on a fourth-wicket stand of 109 with John Lester
107 http://cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/4/4791.html
>> In the second innings, King took 5 for 102 a
*6/102. Same link as above
>> He bowled three hundred overs more than anyone else and took as many wickets.
*Not clear what is meant by "as many wickets". It is an exaggeration if it is "as many wickets as everyone else put together" (72 v 121)
>> King scored 447 runs with an average of just over 20
*441 http://cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Seasons/Seasonal_Averages/ENG/1897_f_Batting_by_Runs.html
>> He took 2 for 26 against Gloucestershire in the first innings but did not play the second.
*bowl in the second
>>He also made 7 for 21 and 2 for 28 against a strong MCC side at Lord’s.
*7 for 51. Use 'took' instead of 'made'. http://cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/6/6232.html
>>In the second innings he made 113 and took 3 for 98. Surrey lost the match by 110 runs.
*113* http://cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/6/6316.html
>>He also scored 39 centuries in his first-class career and he topped 1,000 runs in a season six times.
*You must be talking about league cricket in USA. He scored only one fc 100 (the 113*) and never made 1000.
>>Bart King took all 10 wickets in an innings on three occasions (on five others he took 9 wickets). One of these occasions, against the Gentlemen of Ireland, in 1909 was followed by his taking the hat-trick in the second innings.[32]
*There is again a little mixup here. 3 10WIs must be in all cricket, while the 10WI v Ireland was in an fc match. So it may be highlighted.
>>A bowler like Yorkshire's George Hirst started to shatter stumps with balls that ducked in with the force of a hard throw in from mid-off.
*The version that I am familiar with is that it was like a good throw from cover point (the first result in a google search is http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wisdencricketer/content/story/258600.html ) Would like to hear the opinion of JHall/Johnlp etc on this. Tintin 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work. Thanks for the review. I'll get to work on this at my earliest convenience.--Eva bd 16:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I think I've heard the "cover point" version too, though it was obviously a piece of hyperbole by whoever originally coined the phrase, since if taken literally it would imply that the ball swung by something of the order of 45 degrees. JH 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just came across this about Hirst's "swerve" (which I think we would nowadays call "swing", in a book by AA Thomson: "He began as a straight fast bowler and only developed his slightly diabolical 'swerve' round about the turn of the century. On his swerving day hardly anyone could play him. His swerver must have been a fearsome ball to deal with; its victims said it came suddenly at you like a fierce throw-in from cover." Yorkshire played the Philadelphians in 1897: Yorkshire v Philadelphians. Although Hirst did not play in that match, I like to imagine that in the nets afterwards King taught him how to bowl the swerver. Unfortunately I've no hard evidence to back it up. JH (talk page) 10:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Mid-off, cover, and cover-point. All we need now is a citation which says that it came from the direction of first slip :-) Tintin 07:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom Melville writes that though George Hirst and Albert Relf could swing the ball, only King seemed to have the ability to swing it both ways without losing pace. Tintin 04:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: As the Peer Review seems to have stalled, I was thinking of putting the article up for Good Article Status. Have I addressed most of the concerns raised here on the talk page and on the Peer Review? Let me know if there are any other glaring problems before I try the GAC process.--Eva bd 15:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should pass GAC easily; the criteria used aren't especially strict. Trebor 16:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's been nominated. We'll see what other editors think.--Eva bd 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GAC?

message: This is a very nice article. Well-referenced and well written. Kudos.Reddyrov
:Thanks for reviewing the article. I'm glad that you liked it. Please feel free to add any relevant information that will help to improve the article.--Eva bd 14:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: Others have noted that the GAC was going to be no problem. It seems that they were right because two editors have given us a pass on that front. Now, I'd like to push toward Featured Article Candidacy. Tintin made reference to this article by Tony. Based on others' input, the prose will be the largest obstacle to FA status. Does anyone think that there are shortcomings in comprehensiveness, accuracy, neutral, stable, length, or any of the other requirements. Any more input is more than welcome.--Eva bd 13:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Picador is an anthology, can you please also add the name of the book from which the Picador article is taken. Tintin 07:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If the tours of England in 1897 and 1903 have sections of their own, shouldn't that in 1908 also have one? JH (talk page) 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously if information is in short supply for the 1908 tour then there isn't a lot you can do until/unless more turns up. But given King's bowling figures for that tour, I can't agree that it deserves less coverage than the other two if the information can be found. I think it should have a section of its own, even if it has to be shorter than those on the other two tours. JH (talk page) 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point well taken. I'll try to put up a short section on the 1908 tour. I've still got no answer to Tintin's question. Anyone else?--Eva bd 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC?

message: Not entirely without interest, I just wanted to let ya'll know that I've started work on another Philadelphian here. If you know of any other source for information, please let me know.--Eva bd 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have Tom Melville's Tented Field. If you need anything from it, just drop me a message. Tintin 01:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just so that readers of this talk page know, I also made an article for George Stuart Patterson of the Philadelphians.--Eva bd 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another American Cricketer

message: Batting	Batting	Batting   	Batting 	Bowling	Bowling	Bowling	Bowling	Bowling
Opposition                        	Matches	Runs   	Average	High Score	50 / 100	Runs   	Wickets	Average	Best   	5I / 10M
AM Wood's XI                      	1      	32     	32     	32        	0 / 0   	-      	-      	-      	-      	- / -
Australians                       	7      	133    	12.09  	45        	0 / 0   	615    	41     	15.00  	5-22   	5 / 0
BJT Bosanquet's XI                	2      	22     	5.50   	9         	0 / 0   	267    	23     	11.50  	8-78   	3 / 1
Cambridge University              	2      	74     	18.50  	53        	1 / 0   	303    	13     	23.30  	5-136  	1 / 0
Derbyshire                        	1      	14     	14.00  	14        	0 / 0   	116    	12     	9.66   	7-28   	2 / 1
F Mitchell's XI                   	2      	39     	19.50  	16        	0 / 0   	243    	20     	12.15  	7-55   	3 / 1
Gloucestershire                   	2      	57     	19.00  	57        	1 / 0   	126    	4      	31.50  	2-26   	0 / 0
Hampshire                         	2      	129    	32.25  	52        	1 / 0   	257    	9      	28.55  	5-110  	1 / 0
Ireland                           	3      	56     	28.00  	54*       	1 / 0   	214    	39     	5.48   	10-53  	4 / 3
Kent                              	5      	213    	21.30  	47        	0 / 0   	511    	32     	15.96  	7-39   	3 / 0
KS Ranjitsinhji's XI              	2      	51     	12.75  	40        	0 / 0   	191    	4      	47.75  	3-89   	0 / 0
Lancashire                        	2      	5      	1.66   	3         	0 / 0   	173    	16     	10.81  	9-62   	2 / 1
Leicestershire                    	1      	43     	21.50  	22        	0 / 0   	180    	7      	25.71  	5-88   	1 / 0
Lord Hawke's XI                   	2      	7      	2.33   	6         	0 / 0   	186    	7      	26.57  	3-58   	0 / 0
Marylebone Cricket Club           	7      	250    	19.23  	83        	1 / 0   	642    	38     	16.89  	7-51   	2 / 0
Middlesex                         	2      	43     	10.75  	22        	0 / 0   	162    	11     	14.72  	4-19   	0 / 0
Northamptonshire                  	1      	34     	17.00  	34        	0 / 0   	102    	6      	17.00  	3-51   	0 / 0
Nottinghamshire                   	3      	77     	15.40  	36        	0 / 0   	363    	27     	13.44  	7-54   	2 / 1
Oxford University                 	2      	73     	36.50  	47        	0 / 0   	118    	9      	13.11  	8-39   	1 / 0
Oxford University Past and Present	1      	23     	11.50  	16        	0 / 0   	113    	5      	22.60  	4-83   	0 / 0
PF Warner's XI                    	5      	230    	28.75  	68        	1 / 0   	545    	32     	17.03  	9-25   	2 / 1
Somerset                          	2      	49     	24.50  	24*       	0 / 0   	137    	5      	27.40  	3-34   	0 / 0
Surrey                            	3      	274    	54.80  	113*      	1 / 1   	493    	19     	25.94  	6-47   	1 / 0
Sussex                            	1      	58     	58.00  	58        	1 / 0   	115    	13     	8.84   	7-13   	2 / 1
Warwickshire                      	2      	68     	22.66  	46*       	0 / 0   	183    	12     	15.25  	7-72   	2 / 1
Worcestershire                    	1      	31     	15.50  	29        	0 / 0   	88     	8      	11.00  	5-43   	1 / 0
Yorkshire                         	1      	49     	49.00  	49        	0 / 0   	54     	3      	18.00  	3-54   	0 / 0
Overall                           	65     	2134   	20.51  	113*      	8 / 1   	6497   	415    	15.65  	10-53  	38 / 11
Here you go - place this as you wish. Might be worth checking to make sure I haven't made any glaring errors. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, Ollie. One problem that I see is the very first link. You pipe AM Wood's XI to Arthur Wood (cricketer). I think that you actually want it pointing to Arthur Wood (American cricketer)...which I haven't started yet (but his stats can be seen here). It's on my list of articles to write, and I think I'll boost it farther up the line now. Other than that, a fine job!--Eva bd 13:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to the article, but still haven't made Arthur's article.--Eva bd 15:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right about AM Wood. Did you check the other XIs - I piped them mostly by (educated) guess-work. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick look, and I think they're alright. Thanks again. Great Job!--Eva bd 17:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the link for Arthur Machin Wood has now gone blue, I've updated the article with the correct link. Thanks.--Eva bd 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First-class performance table

message: Would the link to this word in the lead of the article be better if it were piped to something like History of English amateur cricket or Gentlemen v Players. These articles would help to get the point of a gentleman cricketer across better than a simple explanation of gentleman. Thoughts?--Eva bd 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gentleman in this context refers to the cricket terminology, so I think a link to History of English amateur cricket is best suited. Andrew nixon 14:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! Thanks.--Eva bd 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Gentlemen players" still look an oxymoron :-) Tintin 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It did. The USA even had it's own Gentlemen v Players match for a few years. Andrew nixon 16:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gentleman]]

message: Well, folks. This article has come a long way since I first got my hands on it in January. It has been through a Peer Review, a Good Article Candidacy, and is nearing the completion of another Peer Review. Is there anyone that would have concerns about me listing it as an FAC once the second Peer Review is closed? The one thing that has not yet been addressed from the PR is a chart of King's batting performance. I've lodged a request with Raven4x4x, and have been assured that it is on its way. Other than this, I think I've addressed all major concerns. Any last thoughts before we let the FAC folks take it apart?--Eva bd 16:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the question has been answered as the article is now featured! Thanks, all.--Eva bd 18:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can this be featured?

message: Just in case anyone missed its addition, the new graph of King's batting performance has been added.--Eva bd 13:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance Graph

message: As a point of interest GH Hirst of Yorkshire was a contempory of King's who bowled what was called swerve. HI Young of Essex(left arm), also bowled swing. One problem with King is we lack an effective account of him bowling in England though we know he was clearly very effective.
The Ralph Barker book is regarded by some as containing its' fair share of slightly dubious stories. King seems to have come in for a few of these(see Lester, Bowen and Mardar)
On the matter of importance. He must be regarded as very important in the history of cricket.Longrunup (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did wonder whether King might have shown Hirst how to swing the ball. IIRC, when I checked the scorecard of the only match in which Yorkshire played the Philadelphians, Hirst wasn't playing. It's still possible that Hirst observed King's method, perhaps in the nets, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any evidence of this. JH (talk page) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Swingers

message: Before this goes on the main page, the point in the above section needs to be made again. I'm unconvinced by the sourcing for the claims that "King is credited as one of the first bowlers to perfect swing bowling. Other bowlers in his time could sometimes get the ball to swing, but King could do so at will with an old or new ball" and "The impact of King's bowling was very far-reaching. Before King and the Philadelphians toured England, English fast bowlers depended on sheer pace, with a possible last-second application of spin. After seeing King's work with the ball, many became "complete anglers" in the Barton King mold. A bowler like Yorkshire's George Hirst started to shatter stumps with balls that ducked in with the force of a hard throw in from mid-off."
The first is sourced to a "book of cricket" and the second to an article in a publication by a society for baseball research. Neither of these sources seem to be a real authority on the topic. As JH says above, it seems unlikely that Hirst met King. Most contemporary sources, and most others to be honest, credit Hirst with the invention of controlled swing. The article here makes it look like Hirst followed King. It is possible King was the pioneer in 1897, but I've never seen this claim made anywhere else in authoritative sources. Also, his bowling record in 1897, 72 wickets at an average of 24, was pretty feeble by the standards of the time. By his next visit, Hirst had already had some spectacular bowling seasons with swerve and shown what was possible. I suspect King may have been a better bowler, but that is not the point. I think this needs reworking a little before TFA day. 
I'll take it out for the moment and reword a little, but anyone who is unhappy can put it back as long as the discussion is continued here. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken out the "impact" section, and modified the "first bowlers" part. I also wonder about the provenance of the Giffen quote, which makes it appear all the American bowlers used swing, but I've left it for now. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking a pre-TFA look at this.  If you / others do end up altering the lead, I would be very grateful if you tweak Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 19, 2013 as necessary; that page can be freely edited up to 17th October, and after that you'll need to find a passing admin e.g. through WP:ERRORS. BencherliteTalk 19:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: More on swing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bart King. 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/20120207072143/http://www.haverford.edu/library/cricket/JBKING.HTM to http://www.haverford.edu/library/cricket/JBKING.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401161631/http://www.cricketarchive.com:80/Archive/Seasons/ENG/1908_ENG_Philadelphians_in_England_1908.html to http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Seasons/ENG/1908_ENG_Philadelphians_in_England_1908.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914163433/http://www.cricketarchive.com:80/Archive/Seasons/USA/1896_USA_Australia_in_North_America_1896.html to http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Seasons/USA/1896_USA_Australia_in_North_America_1896.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bart King. 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/20070930025330/http://cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/4/4791.html to http://cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/4/4791.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Looking at this one as part of the ongoing FA sweeps.  There is some uncited text scattered throughout, some of the stuff in the lead (particularly the quotes) are not in the body, and the reference to G.S. Patterson XI in the infobox is not mentioned in the article body.  This one needs a bit of work, but should be fixable. Hog Farm  Talk 14:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA concerns