Talk:Billy Beldham

A fine mess

The article needs a complete revision and every single statement in the "Career" section must be verified. In its present state, it has completely failed all the rating criteria with "no" given to all six questions. As a result, I've reverted it to stub-class.

I've removed the infobox which was completely misleading in view of the incomplete records of Beldham's time and the lack of any consistent view about statistics in the period. The infobox quoted CricketArchive's record of Beldham since 1801 and ignored his performances in "major matches" for over 15 years before that. Until there is some generally accepted consensus about statistics from the thirty years either side of 1800, it is pointless trying to summarise them in this way. For example, how can a batting average be computed when we don't even know how many times he was not out?

The only thing that can be done in the statistical (i.e., lies and damned lies) sense is to calculate his known appearances, runs, wickets and catches in all "major" or "first-class" matches during his known career and mention this in the body of the article with a clear caveat to the effect that they are figures based on the known facts only.

I'll work on the article myself when I have time but it is going to need a lot of effort. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am working on a Beldham/Hambledon website, and have the stats from the known and recorded matches 1785-1821. A batting average is possible, with the caveat that he doubtless played many more games that aren't listed. Andrew G. Doe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.23.255 (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As of today, the article has been drastically reduced with the removal of all speculative rubbish and other stuff that, although true, has not been verified. I have left a few points in with the "cn" tag attached as I think they are in Haygarth and I can check those quite soon. I think we now have a solid base for proper development. --Jack | ^{talk page} 06:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Not outs" were recorded from the 1773 season onwards, thus it's perfectly possible for an accurate average to be calculated, with, of coruse, the caveat that these are known games and not all games played. Further, CricketArchive have now re-evaluated their stance on when the first class game began, and have pushed the start date back to 1772, and the habitual use of scorecards. Thus, Beldham now has 189 known first class games to his credit, scoring 7045 runs at an average of 21.47. AGD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.50.141 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The question of Beldham's first match for Hambledon - that is, his first 'first class' game - is a thorny one, and the contradictory evidence doesn't help ! Mote's claim that he first played for them in 1780 can be safely disregarded as at the time he was only 14 and only probably played in local village games (a Beldham is recorded as playing for Alton, Farnham & Odiham against Arlesford in 1780, but this is almost certainly his elder brother George). In Beldham's own words, as related by Pycroft, he played for Farnham against Hambledon at Broadhalfpenny Down (the score is lost but it seems Farnham won) in his eighteenth year, that is 1784, scoring 43 and that having been seen in this game by Lord Winchilsea, he was approached the following spring to play for Hambledon. However, Beldham was recalling events half a century earlier and his recollection was questionable in parts. For one thing, Hambledon had moved from Broadhalfpenny to Windmill Down for the 1782 season, and further, the match referred to almost certainly took place on September 19th 1785, being the return of a game where Farnham were thrashed by an innings. There is no record of Beldham having played anything other than local games in 1785 or 1786, although the records are exceedingly incomplete. It's possible he was, as it were, 'apprenticed' to the Hambledon club in 1786 and first deemed worth of a game the following season. Given the current state of the records, it's impossible to say. The Lord's fire of 1825 has much to answer for. Andrew G. Doe (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I chose Underdown as the source because he presents the information in the most logical and readable fashion. The only source for Beldham playing in a Hambledon/Hampshire team in 1785 is Beldham himself via Pycroft and, as that is verifiable, we have to accept it despite there admittedly being doubt. You've hit the nail on the head when you blame the Lord's fire. I wouldn't be surprised if literally hundreds of unique records were lost. We have to assume George Beldham was active in 1780: Mr Mote clearly made an error in assuming otherwise but there is no need to mention this in the article and it should be ignored, especially as we have the Underdown evidence that can safely be cited. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What's your opinion of John Goulstone's book ? I see you removed it as a source. I admire the scholarship & depth of research, but possibly a few too many family trees, and oh, the writing style is so dry ! Andrew G. Doe (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions in narrative

I've removed the following from the narrative per WP:MOS as to raise questions within the narrative is deprecated:

Of course, among the questions posed by this entry are, if he was considered a Hambledon player in July 1785, why is Beldham not listed on a scorecard as such until August 1787, and why did he still play for Farnham, including games against the club he was a documented member of ?

The fact is that 18th century players were not tied to any one team and most played for several different teams in a single season. There is a case (Thomas Brett) of a player who was apparently a "one-club man" but he is a rare exception. As for playing against Hambledon, that is the "given man" syndrome which was frequently used to try and balance teams for purposes of wagering. And the absence of Beldham from scorecards for a couple of years probably has more to do with the absence of scorecards in that period, especially 1785. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Talking of "given man", I was wonder if the use of the term in Beldham's article (and others) would merit a brief explanatory footnote, as the term might puzzle a reader who hadn't encountered it before. JH (talk page) 08:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be explained and I think it would be best to use a footnote like the one I've introduced for the statistical caveat. I'll make a note to do that when the term is used. Thanks again. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 12:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Billy Beldham. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1781.html#1782

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Billy Beldham/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

• c.1782 to... Makes this a little difficult to read - is it circa 1782 or circa 82-21? Perhaps reword to state which. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Amended to "between 1782 and 1821". There is a very slight doubt about 1782 because his first name isn't given in the source but it is almost certainly him, albeit only sixteen at the time. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• top-class player - I vaguely remember this being a cricket term - is there a good link for this? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It was actually just adjectival here but I can see it is ambiguous because of "first-class" which didn't exist then. I've adapted it to "invited to join the Hambledon Club and became mainly associated with....." BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• was a regular choice for England teams. - this kind of undersells that he played for his country for 33 years, which is a crazy innings. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've switched the order of the sentence to put England first and said he "regularly played for England teams from 1787 until 1820". BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

General

• The lede gives a birthdate, but the body doesn't. How is this sourced? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I usually source the dates but have overlooked them this time. I've given a source for both in the lead with the same source for his death at the end. I've cited Haygarth for birth in the narrative because he gives a fair bit of additional info but Haygarth's book was published only weeks after Beldham died. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• The source provides a scorecard.[11 - this is the sort of thing that notes are for Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That was a bit like saying: "there is a source and I've just cited it at the end of the previous sentence". I've removed the sentence. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• The Holt Pound ground is known locally as "the Oval" and several Surrey matches were contested there, including one in 1808 when they beat England by 66 runs. - I kind of don't understand why the local name is important to this article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the surplus and slightly adapted the rest. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• which led to three matches against the Hambledon Club itself for a purse of £100 - when we give money amounts for the past, we should {{convert}} them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Guildford & Godalming XXII - a 22? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they often played odds matches as they were known until well into the 19th century. It was done because of gambling to handicap the quality team and try to even things up. Even so, the quality team would usually win because their professional bowlers could dismiss 21 weekend locals as easily as they could dismiss ten; it just took a bit longer. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Notes should be sourced. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, those were largely forgotten. I took out the "given men" one because it is a common usage term that isn't sourced anywhere. It is in the cricket project glossary so I linked it instead.

• 16* - on first use, can we say "not out" and then. Put an asterisk in brackets? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a good point because I'm forgetting that many readers are not familiar with cricket notation which can seem complex on first encounter. I've changed all instances of * to plain not out, the first one linked. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• The MCC in section head, can we change to Marylebone Cricket Club? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• he was an opponent to be reckoned with - this sort of fluffy wording isn't really suitable. Can we not say "he performed well in matches he lost?" And then give examples? Check throughout. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit newspaper-ish. I've changed it to "often on the winning side but, even when his team lost, he tended to play well in adversity" followed by the two MCC v Middlesex examples. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Haygarth commented on the high match total of 724. - without saying what they said this isn't all that important. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Changed it to read that "to Haygarth, a match total of 724 was very high". That is basically all he said. Prevailing pitch conditions, with exposure to weather and use of sheep to shorten the grass, meant that any match total of 400-plus was to the batsmen's credit - nowadays, on manicured and protected "flat tracks", totals of 1,000-plus are very common. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• said: "You - a few times when you start a quote you use a capital. If it's mid-sentence in the prose it should be lowercase. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  But where the quotation itself is a complete sentence, with its terminating full stop or question mark within the quotation marks, then I believe it should start with a capital. For example: Bloggs said: "This is correct." I noticed when reading the latest version of the article that "Here" at the start of a quote had become "here", when I didn't think that it should have. JH (talk page) 17:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at this again, JH is quite right. If the quote is a sentence or starts at the beginning of a sentence, then the opening capital stays. I've re-amended. There are two, one beginning with "Here" and one with "You". Sorry about the confusion there. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• What makes it a "select Bibliography"? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. Comes of using another article as a template. BoJó | talk UTC 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, Lee. Please let me know of any questions and I'll try to help. BoJó | talk UTC 04:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the review, Lee. I'll take a look and get back to you soon. All the best. BoJó | talk UTC 09:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Lee. A very thorough review which has helped me to improve the article. I've answered all the points you've raised. Could you please look through and let me know if you have anything else that needs attention. Thanks and all the best. BoJó | talk UTC 21:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A couple of comments

I've just had a very quick scan through the latest version. 1. When the term "given man" is used, I think it needs a brief note to explain what it means. 2. I see that John Woodcock rating Beldham very highly in his 100 greatest cricketers of all time has been omitted (unless it's been moved and I missed it). I think Woodcock's opinion carries enough weight that it's worth retaining. (But I should declare an interest, as I think it was I who put it in originally.) JH (talk page) 17:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JH. I do apologise but the Woodcock piece went AWOL. I was moving things around and obviously missed a paste. It is of course highly relevant for legacy purposes. Thanks for pointing it out and I hope it's okay now. I'm looking at given men as it is a point raised in the review as one of the footnotes. I see we only have it in the project glossary but I'm sure I've seen a source somewhere that does provide an explanation. I'll keep looking. Thanks again and sorry for my clumsiness. BoJó | talk UTC 20:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)