Talk:History of English cricket (1726–1750)

Hello. The merger is underway now but, although it should not "take years" (unlike some mentioned at WP:MERGE), it is a long-term task and I have other things to do. I will keep at it, though. I've done 1726, 1727 and 1763 but there were a lot of problems in the history article that still haven't been completely resolved, especially the lack of citations.

The important thing to note about merging is attribution, so that copyright is not infringed. Also, page histories and early contributions must not be lost. It is therefore essential to comply with WP:MERGE, even to the point of using the prescribed edit summary. If anyone else wishes to merge one of the reviews, please make sure you do exactly what the guide says. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a lack of synch across early cricket articles. List of early English cricketers to 1771 has a later threshold to its successor that seems more logical given references to first-class cricket beginning in 1772. It looks as if 1763 was chosen to close the history because the Seven Years War ended then, but that is a poor choice because the war ended in the opening weeks of the year – a long time before the cricket season started!

I can't see any good cricket reason for using 1763 as an end date but a very good one for using 1771 if a new standard began in the following season. So, unless anyone objects by tomorrow evening, I'll move this article to History of cricket (1726–1771) and the next to History of cricket (1772–1815). Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeating the message I've posted at Talk:History of cricket (1772–1815). Following recent discussion of this period with the third parties who assisted me at 1744 English cricket season, I think it was a mistake to merge 1772 English cricket season. That was a significant year in the sport's history because match scorecards became the rule rather than the exception; and the season is widely considered to mark the beginning (albeit unofficially) of first-class cricket. I'm therefore undoing the merger to retain the article as an independent review of 1772, as for 1744. The summary in the 1772–1815 history is useful, however, and I'll leave that be. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Pings to ActivelyDisinterested, Boca Jóvenes, Bonadea, Hamza Ali Shah, Hey man im josh, Jhall1, Pppery, The Eloquent Peasant.

Hi, all. Apologies for any inconvenience, but I've pinged you because you have edited this article in the last three years, and you may be able to offer me some advice. I'm here on behalf of WP:GOCE because the article has been flagged for copyediting. The request was raised by 78.144.169.217 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), based in Northern Ireland, who also flagged History of English cricket (1751–1775) and Cricket in Ireland.

The article's problems go far beyond mere copyediting — of which there isn't much needed, to be fair. I'm listing the issues below:

• I think a period of 25 years is too short for a history. This article follows History of cricket to 1725 which has an actual history span of over 125 years, plus what can be assumed about earlier centuries.

• If the article were to be completed and improved to, say, B-class, it would be either a short summary or a massively detailed season-by-season compendium. I don't believe either option would be suitable.

• The article was created nineteen years ago as History of cricket 1701–1800 but it has had a chequered history with several renames and changes of scope, so I am not really sure what it is supposed to represent.

• As the talk page shows, fifteen season reviews from 1726 English cricket season to 1740 English cricket season have supposedly been merged into this article. Except that, for the most part, they haven't. So, what is happening with the rest of the information in those fifteen articles which are now redirects? I have WP:PRESERVE in mind here.

• Apparently, it was also intended that the ten articles from 1741 English cricket season to 1750 English cricket season should be merged into this article too. That hasn't happened at all, hence the four empty sections at the end. Those ten articles still exist and I see that one of them, 1744 English cricket season is a WP:GA.

• A partial merge having been done, it looks as if chunks of text have been lifted from the fifteen articles and just banged together in a sort of chronological sequence. The result is a difficult read without cohesion, as you just hop from fact to fact, often having to re-read several sentences to try and grasp what the article is saying. Compared with 1744 English cricket season, the GA, this article is sub-standard; and 1744 shows what can be done with the admittedly limited information that has survived. Also, there are 25 requests for citations or other unsupported attributions.

As I am here for the purpose of copyediting, I'm not sure if I should take drastic action beyond my remit. But, if it were up to me, I think I would scrap this article and restore each of 1726 English cricket season to 1740 English cricket season. I presume each of those have had their problems too but they must have one very clear advantage. They each have a defined scope. Also, it is unlikely that any of them could become excessively large or a bare stub. 1744 English cricket season has 1,950 words. Looking at the old versions of the fifteen articles, 1726 English cricket season seems to have been the shortest but it had about 500 words and was not a stub. Obviously, the season reviews would need work to expand and complete them, especially where sources are missing, but I think they are the best option to provide adequate coverage of this period.

As I said earlier, all advice is welcome. I don't feel that I can leave the article in its present condition. Thanks for your time, and best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:History of English cricket (1726–1750)/Archive 1#Merger proposal. I'm not a regular sports editor, but the merge looks reasonable in principle to me - these individual years in which only a few scattered records are known probably aren't notable. The GAs has a major notability hook: 1744 cricket season in England is remembered for the earliest known codification of the Laws of Cricket

On the other hand, the major driver of this merge, No Great Shaker was blocked for sockpuppetry and was suspected of being themselves a sock of an even older account, which left some projects abandoned. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The plot thickens! Yes, I think 1744 must have been exceptional for the sport's rules, very much like 1863 in football. Thanks, Pppery. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It gets worse. Most of the individual season articles, as well as this article itself, were originally created by the "even older account" I referred to earlier. So this is a war-zone left behind by someone creating a bunch of articles, retiring a decade later, then coming back as a sock to try to undo their own work. None of this history really matters, though - I'm weakly in favor of having one merged article over one for every year, but if that's unworkable so be it.* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Pppery. I was right when I said "chequered history", then, but I'd only seen the various renames!

Anyway, given that we have those empty sections for 1741 to 1750, maybe we should rename it (again!) as History of English cricket (1726–1740) and retain the individual 1741 to 1750 articles? I think this would be pragmatic as it seems unlikely that anyone will ever complete the merge, while someone could potentially improve the article, as is, if it is limited to fifteen years. We would probably need to remove the unsourced content unless there is a workaround for any of it. Some of the source books were published in the last 25 years and might be obtainable – in fact, I'll ask at our library.

As far as copyediting goes, it's okay for spelling and grammar, although I'll read through it again. The prose issues are around cohesion and clarity of meaning. Thanks again. PearlyGigs (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I've worked through the article apart from the "Other events" section which is an unco-ordinated collection of extracts from the season articles. While the spelling, grammar and syntax were all okay, there was a need to combine and shift sentences and paragraphs to eliminate duplication and achieve some cohesion. I think it is satisfactory now as a starter for ten to cover the 1726 to 1740 period. The "other events" material can be merged into it, and may provide some of the missing sources.

I think we should rename as History of English cricket (1726–1740) and consider 1741 to 1750 out of scope, unless referenced in future terms as I've done with the 1744 code of laws. I'll leave this for now but still happy to read other editors' ideas and feedback. Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been away on holiday, so have come late to the discussion. Thanks for your work on this. Though I haven't yet had a chance to look at it, going by what's said here it sounds like it should be a big improvement. JH (talk page) 18:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey again to PearlyGigs. Please see my message at the IP discussion page. Would you also please run through the new version using your proofreading and copyediting skills? In the main, I have addressed the missing sources and I have dealt with the defunct dropzone that was at the end of the previous version. It is not finished because there is little about the 1740s but it would be good to know if it is now providing a sound basis for enlargement. Beir bua! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.173.132 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry I've not been around. I got your ping at the other page and replied there first. You've certainly made some big improvements to this. I don't know about my "skills" as such but I will read it all and dot any ayes. Thanks.👍 PearlyGigs (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

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:History of English cricket (1726–1750)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ReturnDuane (talk · contribs) 13:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) 02:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article, expect the initial remarks soon! Vestrian24Bio 02:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@ReturnDuane: you have made only 0.2% contribution to this article, will you be willing to address any concerns raised during the review...? otherwise, I will have to fail this nomination. Vestrian24Bio 02:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, User:Vestrian24Bio. The two IP editors last August were both me, before I opened an account here. One IP address was in Ireland, where I live, the other in GB, where I work. I have access to all the sources and so, yes, I can answer any questions raised. Thank you for offering to do the review. I should be able to look in every day for the next two or three weeks. ReturnDuane (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I will continue the review. Vestrian24Bio 03:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Closing note: I am closing this review now as per the nominator's request here. Vestrian24Bio 11:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

@ReturnDuane:

• EARWIG shows 29.1% - violations unlikely.
• According to link-dispenser,
  • 7 refs need archive links.
• References are looking good!
• Sidebar should be placed above the image.

Vestrian24Bio 03:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello again. I've removed the sidebar which I really disliked. It added nothing of value, even when limited to history only.

The EARWIG results are interesting but its findings tend to be text being directly quoted. I notice it has highlighted Prince of Wales, for example, so it is altogether too rigorous. I'll be happy to reword any text or quotes that you personally may be dubious about, but I don't believe there are any violations in the strict sense of WP:COPYVIO.

Are archive links necessary as I think the original links are directly accessible?

Actually, I think this would be a good idea for a couple of them at least, so I'm closing them off. All done. ReturnDuane (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

EARWIG percentage is just a procedural thing, it should be taken to consideration only when its 75+, otherwise it's good. Vestrian24Bio 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The majority of references are from books which are all reputable sources. I can't remember if I added any new references back in August, but I checked the existing references (content, page numbers, relevance, etc.) for validation.

Thanks again. ReturnDuane (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Final review

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.

There are separate pages for each season from 1725 to 1750, but as far as I can tell, they're not mentined or linked in this article, only hidden away in the naxbox at the bottom, which is collapsed by default and not visible at all in the mobile view. Shouldn't they be made more visible in the article? — Chrisahn (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Chrisahn. You're right, they should be linked each time the year or season is mentioned. I'll make a note to deal with it. The same will also apply to the next one in the history series (1751 to 1775, I think). Thanks for mentioning this, because it will certainly be an improvement. I'm going to be very busy with the season pages for the next week or so, but I will come back to this. All the best, Jack (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

No hurry. I don't know anything about cricket and I can't contribute, I just stumbled upon this page while dealing with some technical issues. I guess I should also add that I have no opinion regarding the question whether these individual pages should exist. If I understand correctly, they were merged into this page at some point but later split into separate pages again. None of my business. :-) Happy editing, everyone! — Chrisahn (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of English cricket (1726–1750)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 21:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: AA (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll do this one, review to follow. AA (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much, AA, and take your time. There's no rush, and I know you're very busy in real life. All the best, Jack (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Table:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Regional, but also colonial:

• No comments here!

Comments

Lead:

• Concise and provides an adequate summary of the article.
• I wonder if "zenith" (perhaps a niche word to the wider world) could be replaced with "peak" or similar? Agreed. I think "peak" is best.

Women's cricket:

• "...it was difficult for women to get involved in male-dominated pursuits...", I wonder if "to get involved" could be reworded as "to partake"? Done.
• "They all dressed in white but...", comma after "white" I think. Done.
• Odd that two Sussex village sides played in London, wonder why that was? Also, with the crowd trouble at the match, I don't suppose any source mentions what caused it?

Waghorn had been talking about the price of admission (sixpence) at the Artillery Ground. He began the next paragraph, about the actual play, by saying it was interrupted as "the company broke in". So, it's all a bit vague, but it could have been a protest against the admission charge that got out of hand. As for it being played at the Artillery Ground, the only comment is that the match was "so long expected", which was a commonplace expression at the time. The match could have been a decider of sorts between the best two ladies' teams, but Waghorn's source is typically brief, and we can only guess.

Do you think there is anything we could add?

@BlackJack: I agree, all very vague, so not sure there is much that can be added without straying into conjecture. Still, matches at the time seemed quite rowdy, never been to a match where it's kicked off! AA (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Same for me at cricket matches. Have seen a lot of it at footy, though! About the rowdiest thing I've seen at cricket was someone shouting: "Hit the bloody thing, Boycott, and stop pissing about!" And that was a Yorkshire supporter.... Jack (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Educational links:

• For respectively, the order later in the sentence needs rejigging to match the order of the counties: Cambridgeshire → University of Cambridge; Hampshire → Winchester College; Oxfordshire → University of Oxford. Or, if the latter order goes where cricket was first played, the counties will need reorganising to match. I've forgotten my ABC! Well spotted.
• Comma after 1729. Done.

Coverage in the media and the arts:

• "Only three notices were published in 1726 but this increased to nineteen in 1730." Comma after "but". Done.
• Link to Scorer. Done.
• "The England v Kent at the Artillery Ground match on 18 June 1744..." This doesn't sound all that natural, perhaps: "The England v Kent match at the Artillery Ground on 18 June 1744..." Done (how did I not see that one!).

@BlackJack: Amazing isn't, took Mascarenhas to FAC recently and made a right pigs ear of a sentence, I thought I had proofread humpteen times! AA (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Link "2nd Duke of Richmond" as the first mention in the article. Done (also, I've de-linked the second one).

Patronage and players:

• "...the 2nd Duke of Richmond, Sir William Gage;" I think the comma can be replaced with "and" here, due to the semicolon. Done. AA (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comma after "1730s". Done.
• "...who led a combined London, Middlesex and Surrey in 1743." Not essential, but I might be inclined to insert "team" after "Surrey", just for any ambiguity that might arise as to what was being led. Done.
• I'd be inclined to omit the DOB and DOD of Gray. Done.
• "The two "noble lords" are believed to have been Bedford and Sandwich." I'd state that Ashley-Cooper believed this to be the case, and introduce him as "the cricket historian F. S. Ashley-Cooper", or something along those lines! Done. That's a good point.
• Similar to the sentence with John Bowra being William Bowra's father, I assume Buckley believed this to be the case? If Buckley, I'd introduce him in the same fashion. Done. The ACS found a possibility that John was William's uncle, so we're best to say "believed".

@BlackJack: I'm happy with this :) AA (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I would bet on father and son, myself, though. Jack (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Single wicket:

1726–1740

• Comma after 1726. Done.
• On a personal note, my girlfriend and I regularly walk along the towpath at Moulsey Hurst, and I had no idea until reading this article that it was the Moulsey Hurst! In this painting, where the match is taking place corresponds roughly to where I park the car when we visit and get a 99!

That is interesting. Comparing the painting with this photo in the Moulsey Hurst article, some buildings are in both. I've added the painting to the article. It looks like 99 weather this week. I know we've got some Magnums in the freezer!

Nice add to that article. Certainly ice cream weather, going to be a scorcher! If you find yourself in Moulsey, the 99 is much cheaper at £3.60 compared the the one at Bushey Park that is nearly £6... daylight robbery there!

• I think the final two sentences in that first paragraph could be linked by a semicolon after "Surrey". Done.
• Link "1730 season" to 1730 English cricket season. Done.
• Would Template:Inflation work for the £50 stake part, would be good if it could allow for a comparison to how much that be worth today! Good idea. Multiplied it by nearly 200, ha!
• I've had a go at rewording this part: "Three of Kent won the match by 2 runs. The London Evening Post says the crowd was computed to be 10,000. A return match was arranged at Sevenoaks Vine a few days later but it was cancelled." → "Three of Kent won the match by 2 runs, with The London Evening Post estimating the spectating crowd to be 10,000; a return match was arranged at Sevenoaks Vine a few days later but it was cancelled." Done; much better.

1741–1746

• "Hodsoll and Newland were the team captains", link to [[Captain (cricket)|captains]]. Done.
• I don't suppose it is known why the return match was cancelled?

No, the source only says it was to have been played on Sevenoaks Vine, but it "did not come off".

• "Five of Richmond and Five of London", I wonder if both "fives" can be dropped here, as the earlier part of the sentence establishes the match as five-a-side? Done.
• Link "results" to [[Result (cricket)|results]]. Done.
• "Hodsoll's three won by 7 runs" is quite a short sentence, could this be joined to the prior with a semicolon? Done.
• "On 6 August 1746, a three-a-side game in the Artillery Ground involved "six players esteemed the best in England"." I think this will need a reference at the end of this sentence. Done. Yes, it's a direct quote, so there must be a citation.

1747–1750

• With the September ruling, could a footnote being inserted to explain to non-cricket layman's what is meant by "all Strokes behind as well as before Wickets"?

Good idea. I've written one, but please check that it makes sense, as this is an obscure ruling.

• Link 1748 season to 1748 English cricket season (also comma after "season"). Done.

Club cricket:

• Comma after "Croydon". Done.

London

• Link 1731 season to [[1713 English cricket season]]
• I think a comma is needed after 1722 to seperate clauses?
• "They met twice in 1729. The first match in Dartford was for a stake of £50, but the result is unknown" The first sentence is very short. I wonder if connecting it to the following sentence would aide the natural flow, perhaps: "They met twice in 1729, with the first match in Dartford being played for a stake of £50, but the result is unknown"?
• I think a semicolon after "Dartford Brent" would similarly improve flow.
• "They did have a strong eleven for a few years in the 1740s." → "They fielded a strong eleven for a few years in the 1740s."
• 102/6 → 102 for 6
• "Surrey & Sussex won by 55 runs after scoring 102 and 102/6. London scored 79 and 70." This are quite short sentences, reckon they could be merged along the lines of: "Surrey & Sussex won by 55 runs after scoring 102 and 102 for 6, whilst London scored 79 and 70."
• Final paragraph, "...at the Artillery Ground which London...", comma after "which".
• 47/3 → 47 for 3

All the above are done. Much better now.

Chertsey

• For the causual reader, I wonder if Lumpy and Yaldren should be introduced as "the cricketers...", no biggie though!
• Comma after 1736
• 25/9 → 25 for 9 and 12/2 → 12 for 2
• Comma after standing

All done.

Slindon

• Link first mention of 1741 season to [[1741 English cricket season|1741 season]]
• Comma after "doings"
• "...a letter from Sarah to her husband..." I think "Sarah" can be dropped here as she is the subject of the prior sentence, perhaps simply: "...a letter to her husband..."
• Interesting Eartham is mentioned here, as Richard Nyren was born there in 1734.
• "Thanks to letters written by the Richmonds...", I wonder if this could be more "formal"? Perhaps, "As documented in letters written by the Richmonds..."
• "The source says London won the first match..." Is the source Ashley-Cooper? If so, I'd name him in the sentence. Actually, I've cited Maun here because he "corrected Waghorn's wording". The original source was the LEP, which I've mentioned.
• "...a disaster for Slindon who...", comma after "Slindon" I think.
• Might be inclined to combine these sentences: "It was impacted by bad weather and Slindon led by two runs at close of play. There are no surviving reports of play on the 13th." → "It was impacted by bad weather and Slindon led by two runs at close of play, with no surviving reports of play on the 13th."

All done.

County cricket:

• Delink "guineas" as this is linked above. Done.

1726–1730

• Link "county championship". Done.
• The final two sentences in this section can be linked by a semicolon. Done.

1731–1740

• "...against a combined Essex and Hertfordshire XI. The result is unknown." → "...against a combined Essex and Hertfordshire XI, with the result unknown." Done.
• In the following sentence bit, after the semicolon, I'd remove "and" and reword, something like: "it is the earliest recorded mention of cricket in connection with the county of Hertfordshire." Done.
• Quite a few "match/es" in the third paragraph, could these be swapped out for alternatives?
• 70/7 → 70 for 7
• Link "declared" to [[Declaration and forfeiture|declared]].
• "the London & Surrey", might be inclined to add "team" after Surrey to make it sound more natural.
• Swap "&" for "and" per WP:MOS

All done.

1741–1750

• Comma after "1741"
• Comma after "recorded"
• Comma after "1746"
• 40/7 → 40 for 7
• I'd add a comma after 29–1, might also change 29–1 to 29 for 1 for contunity.
• 35/9 → 35 for 9
• Had a good at a little restructuring/rewording of the following: "Kent replied with 63 and 35/9 to win a very tight contest by 1 wicket. Five runs were still needed when the penultimate wicket fell" to "Kent replied with 63 and 35 for 9 to win a very tight contest by 1 wicket; five runs had still been required when the penultimate wicket fell."

All done.

England teams

• "The next match featuring a team that has been called England...", but be more succinctly said as just "The next match featuring a team named England..."
• "played 15 & 16 July" → "played on 15 and 16 July"
• I wonder if the following sentences could be connected to aide flow? "The earliest known definite century was 107 by John Minshull in August 1769, but the match was a minor one only. The first century definitely scored in an important match was by Small for Hampshire against Surrey in July 1775." Perhaps something like "The earliest known definite century was 107 by John Minshull in August 1769, but the match was a minor one only, with the first century definitely scored in an important match being by Small for Hampshire against Surrey in July 1775." No biggie though!
• I think the sentence beginning "Kent met England again in 1746..." can be attached to the paragraph above it.
• I'd omit Pelham's DOB and DOD
• With "keeper", I wonder if this could be linked to [[Glossary_of_cricket_terms#G]] (the groundskeeping article isn't the best!), with a slight rewording: "Before the match took place, George Smith, the groundsman of the Artillery Ground, announced..."
• Link wicket-keeper
• Comma after "1748"
• 59/8 → 59 for 8

All done. I think the suggested rewordings are a big improvement.

Venues

• Prizefighting is linked here, I'd delink and link it at "prizefighter" in the "Patronage and players" section.
• Between "...venue. There...", I'd connect that with a semicolon.
• "A London v Surrey match on 31 August 1730 took place at the Artillery Ground. London won by 6 runs." → "A London v Surrey match on 31 August 1730 took place at the Artillery Ground, which London won by 6 runs."
• Delink "George Smith", as he is linked above! And change "keeper" to "groundskeeper" to avoid any ambiguity over wicket-keepers.
• Comma after "1748"
• Comma after "1740s"
• Comma after "1734"
• Had a go at a light rewording for the Sevenoaks Vine paragraph, specifically this part: "...September 1734, when Kent defeated Sussex".
• For Lord Middlesex and Sackville, I'd omit their DOB/DODs
• I wonder if the latter part of the paragraph is too detailed? Perhaps in brackets after "Lord John Sackville" this could say "(his nephew was the cricketer and patron 3rd Duke of Dorset); I see that Sackville is first mentioned under "Patronage and players", so perhaps this could be mentioned there? If so, from "On a biographical note..." can be omitted.
• I'd omit the DOB/DOD of Princess Augusta

All done. I moved the Sackvilles into the earlier section.

Emergence of written rules

Articles of Agreement, 1727

• Nothing really to add here, only that the match between the 2nd Duke and Brodrick was, I assume, single-wicket. If it was, I'd insert that between "two" and "matches".

They were eleven-a-side. I've tweaked it a bit with links to the two XIs.

General practice and codification

• I'd introduce John Major here... which is easier said than done! "...the politician and cricket writer John Major"? Something like that?!
• Link Pads and "gloves" to Batting glove
• Could equipment being linked to Cricket clothing and equipment? It is a little bit borderline MOS:NOFORCELINK, however.
• I'd introduce Rowland Bowen as "The cricket historian Rowland Bowen".

All done. I think the Cricket clothing and equipment link is fair enough.

Controversy

Legal cases

• "Cricket had some brushes with the law in the first half of the century..." I wonder if "brushes" is too informal, perhaps: "Cricket had some legal issues in the first half of the century..."? Done.
• Comma after "1724". Done.

Gambling

• Comma after "1770s" I think. Done.

Matches

• "...at Richmond Green in a return match played for 200 guineas." This might read more naturally reworded, as: "...in a return match at Richmond Green played for 200 guineas".
• 23/5 → 23 for 5
• "...at a pre-agreed time although Chambers' XI with...", comma after "time".
• "Middlesex patron Thomas Chambers (1677–1750) was the great-grandfather of Lord Frederick Beauclerk." I think this can be omitted, as unrelated to the section as a whole, with Thomas Chambers instead linked in the first sentence.
• Comma after Sussex in the sentence containing "Newick".
• "Next month" → "The following month" – think this reads a little more naturally.
• "London/Surrey" → "London and Surrey"
• "Even so, the fixture was repeated twice in 1738 – Kent won one and the other is an unknown result." I wonder if this is best suited in the final paragraph of the 1731–1740 section?

All done.

Style suggestion

• Just the one, several Blah v Blah, might want to change "v" to "versus", but no biggie there, either one does!

I agree. I think "v" is lazy. I have left one where it's within an actual quote.

Notes

• In the second note, I'd insert "match" after "single-wicket". Done.
• Other than that, notes all look good and the second one does exceptionally well to clarify.

References

• Sampled half a dozen or so and found no issues here. Formatted correctly and containing all relevant publishing info.

Bibliography

• No issues

Categories

• As complete as they can be!

Images

• Fair use rationale seems to stack up on these, not my area of expertise, but seems okay!
• All images ned |alt= text added
• Caption suggestions:

• "Slindon Cricket Sign" → "Slindon cricket sign, depicting the size and shape of the bat and wicket first used in [[Slindon]] in 1731."
• "Portrait of Francis Hayman, by Sir Joshua Reynolds. Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter." → Omit the last sentence
• "Sevenoaks Vine today" → "Sevenoaks Vine cricket ground (pictured in 2008)"
• "Bromley Common in 2009" → "Bromley Common (pictured in 2009), used for cricket from the 1730s"
• "Charles Lennox, 2nd Duke of Richmond." → No full-stop required
• "The Artillery Ground—ready for cricket in 2008" → "The Artillery Ground (pictured in 2008)"
• "Penshurst Park cricket ground, with a [[Cricket pavilion|pavilion]] which was a later addition (pictured in 2012)."
• I wonder if the picture of Walpole could be omitted, as he doesn't really form a large basis in the article?
• "Frederick, Prince of Wales" → "Frederick, Prince of Wales (painted in 1736 by Jacopo Amigoni)"
• Lord Chief Justice Pratt" → "Lord Chief Justice Pratt (painted by Michael Dahl)"
• Final picture caption doesn't need a full-stop

All done. I took Walpole out as his picture is okay in the single season review, but has very little relevance to the entire period.

Hi, AA. It looks as if the ChristieBot has malfunctioned. It's transcluded 1726 English cricket season, not the 1726–1750 history. 1726 is already a GA. I'm not sure what to do at the moment. I'll look into it tomorrow morning. Weird! Jack (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Even so, the points you raised about 1726 are all good, and so I've included them all. I just can't understand how this mix-up has happened. Oh, well, time for some shuteye. All the best, Jack (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Very weird, I have no idea why it has transcluded it as that. A little glitch, perhaps? I've manually fixed it, I think. AA (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The links are certainly working now. Well done. A strange one, that. Jack (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Very, I have never seen that in 15 years on here! I'll crack on with the rest of the review over the coming week, the major work on the flat is done now! AA (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, AA. I think I've covered everything, but there are a couple of changes (e.g., the women's match, and the footnote) which you will need to check. Thank you once again for a very thorough review which has been an enormous help to me in improving the article.

I'm glad you've made some real progress with the renovation work. Job satisfaction counts for a lot.

All the best, Jack (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Cheers! It is very satisfying, especially when I have, probably, an overkeen eye for detail! AA (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, AA, and thanks for doing all this. I've been a bit tied up with other things last couple of days, but I should be able to get on with this tomorrow. Oops! I mean today. Lost track of time. All the best, Jack (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jack. No rush, enjoy the sun!!! AA (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, again, AA. I "think" I've covered everything, but please make sure as I could easily have let something through the net. This has been a very thorough review, and an enormous help. I'll admit that this article was sort of "cobbled together" from existing content in bios and season reviews, and I'm not surprised a lot of fixes were needed. But, the point of a review is to highlight the errors and omissions in order to improve the document, so you've done a really good job, again.

Actually, we're not seeing that much sun up north. It's very humid, and that's uncomfortable. We're mostly indoors with the fans on, ha! Jack (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@BlackJack: You are more than welcome, glad you found the review helpful and have been able to improve the article. I hang out at FAC too much, so I've become quite thorough! On about FAC, and I know you're not a big fan of the process, I think this article has the legs to go there, with one or two expansions. Might be worth a shot at some point? All comments have been actioned, so happy to pass this. Hope you don't mind, but I've adjusted some of the pictures sizes and positions in the article. Weather is blue sky, humid, and just a bit uncomfortable – also have my fan on, and a shame it is a work night, otherwise some crisp ciders might have been in order! AA (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, AA, and thanks for passing it. I wasn't really confident about this one. On the subject of FAC, I think a better contender from me would be this article's predecessor History of cricket to 1725. That reached GA way back in 2008, and it has been carefully looked after since then, especially as JH watches it. I'll think about it, but I'm still very busy with 18C restores, repairs, and enhancements just now, although I'm starting to see a little blink of light at the end of tunnel (no, it's not late enough for a train to be coming!).

I'm more than happy with any changes you choose to make, and the pictures do look better now. Hope you can enjoy a cider or two tomorrow. All the best, and thank you again, Jack (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)