Talk:Abe Waddington

message: *in all first-class cricket played in 266 first-class matches.  - Isn't having "first-class" twice rather redundant?
:*Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nope. Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Fair enough. Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *I'm not sure it would be notable enough. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Unknown. The sources do not say. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *It means bowling throughout both innings of a match without being changed. But on reflection, I don't think it needs to be there and I cut it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Yes, specified now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Tried to clarify. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *No link, but added a note. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Tried to clarify but it's all a bit hearsay. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Nothing in the sources, but I agree it does sound a little like that. Reading between the lines, it does sound like drink may have been involved! But unfortunately that is OR. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, this got me looking again, and there was an "incident" in 1950 which I've added. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Not in the sources. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Not in the sources. To be honest, it was a struggle even to find sources to say he was married, and although I'm sure his first wife died soon after marriage, I can find no reliable sources. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Got these. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crisco comments 

message: First, I checked out the comments I made in July 2011. These seem to have been dealt with satisfactorily, though I'd still like a bit more information about his batting. Could he be described in the lead as a "lower-order batsman"? Do we have any information as to how he batted, e.g. slogger (unlikely – Yorkshire), forcing, defensive?
:I managed to find a bit on this from Herbert Sutcliffe, of all people, and extended that part slightly. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I'm not sure it's worth a comment in the lead on his batting. It was a minor part of his game, and he was by no means an all-rounder; additionally, I don't think for a bowler his batting would merit mention in the lead. But I could be persuaded if you feel it is important. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. And my sympathy over the school cricket. I played one match for my school, scoring a heroic 0 not out from number 11 (2 balls faced, a slash and a leave!), not bowling and dropping a catch. Funnily enough, they never asked me again, either... Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Reworded as suggested, and omitted the pace bowler before Hirst. I think it is clear from the rest of the sentence what he was, and it doesn't matter that much anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Mentioned him at the start. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *The source does not say; I only included the detail to forestall the "why was he missing?" question. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *I'm assuming injury; he was a little injury-prone at the time. But given Douglas' rather odd tactics, I'm not sure. Douglas only bowled 4 overs himself in the first innings, and (bafflingly) Rhodes did not bowl at all. The other spinners seem to have bowled a bit, so maybe it was turning. I can't explain the second innings, unless he was so appalled that Waddington leaked so many runs in the first innings. He was fit enough to bat. On his batting, I think he was nightwatchman in the first innings (out to the last ball of the first day); Dolphin and Howell were pretty terrible batsmen, and Parkin maybe similar to Waddington, and these are the only ones below him in the second innings, so number eight seems about right in that innings. But this is all OR, and the sources say nothing. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *I've moved the 1925 stuff about the benefit to a note, where it is more appropriate as the information is related but tangential. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *My mistake. It's more of a Cardus lament that Waddington should have been rather better than he actually was, and both quotes come from the same lament. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *No dates or details on Cotton in the sources, but got some for the Open. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comments and copy-editing. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brianboulton comments 

message: I'm flattered to be asked for comments, and offer these few points on a sale or return basis. No obligation to buy.
*Lead
**"unusual attributes in his playing days" – "attributes" seems an odd word. I wonder if "conduct" might be better.
***I began tying myself in knots with that, so reworded slightly to avoid the problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the review and comments. As always, they are much appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Two penn'orth from Tim riley

message: Nice and balanced overall, with just a couple of comments:
Lead
*"behaviour which was unusual attributes during his playing days." This doesn't seem to read correctly to me
:*Oops. I don't read what I write. Fixed now. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think I'll risk that one and see what happens. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *I don't think so. It is the same as "he played for Yorkshire" or "he played for Manchester United", I think . Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Would you say "he played for Manchester United second XI"? Your call, but I think the article is probably needed. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually! But if anyone else has a problem, I'll change it as it's possible I've been saying it wrong for all these years!! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from SchroCat

message: ;Lead
*"who played in two Test matches for England against Australia in 1920–21" I would suggest reword to "for England, both against Australia, in 1920–21" to make clear these were the only two Test matches he played in (it could be gathered that he played in more and that these two are exceptional as they were against Australia)
:*Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Reworded a bit of this. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *The source does not say. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *I'm not sure this is important enough to specify. Adding his rank may confuse people even further, as we start to get into the realms of Major Major Major Major! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Yes, but I hate "had had" if it can be avoided, so I reworded a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Yup. Specified. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *I don't think so. A lot of them were. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *As Brian, above, will probably agree, the opportunity to display his magnificent initials is too much to resist! Cricketers love initials more than they love names. And to be honest, he was often known as much as JWHT, and the Australian crowds used to call him "Johnny Won't Hit Today" as he was a spectacularly dull batsman to watch. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comments and suggestions! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cliftonian comments 

message: *Lead: "He was a hostile bowler who sometimes sledged opposing batsmen and questioned umpire's decisions". Not sure about this, but is "umpire's" supposed to have the apostrophe at the end?
*Injury and controversy: "apart one match against Lancashire in which he bowled just six overs." Does "from" belong after "apart"? These two items are all I see that are worth commenting on. Nice job, as usual. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for these. Both done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giants2008 comments