Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Brown (cricketer, born 1887)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:55 25 March 2026 FACBot (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC).[reply]

George Brown (cricketer, born 1887)

edit


Nominator(s): AA (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the English George Brown. He is considered one of the finest all-round cricketers to have played the game - whilst the modern day definition of an all-rounder refers to an ability to bat and bowl in equally good measure, Brown was not only able to do both of those things, but also keep-wicket. He had an extensive career in English domestic cricket with Hampshire between 1909 and 1933, ending his career as their third-highest run-scorer. He played Test cricket for England against Australia and South Africa in the 1920s, with his performances against Australia in 1921 drawing praise in what was a rather dismal series for England. His journey from obscurity playing for a mental hospital cricket team in Oxfordshire, to the heavy heights of playing Test cricket for England in the 1920s has proven interesting to research and write about; especially given his status as a professional meant he was less prominently documented than his amatuer peers. I hope this is an enjoyable read and welcome feedback. AA (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

edit
Lead
  • Brown continued to play county cricket with Hampshire until 1933, after which injury forced him to retire and he then spent two seasons on the first-class umpires list.
    • You could split the sentence into two at "two seasons"; I leave it to you.
  • Brown appeared in 612 first-class matches, scoring over 25,649 runs,
    • Why use "over"? Are these not the exact figures?
  • You could introduce "John Arlott" briefly on his first mention in the text.

MSincccc (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket career (General)
  • How about renaming this section to Early life and cricket career of Early life and career
  • Playing style and statistics could be kept as an independent section rather than as a subsection under Career; I leave it to you.
  • Comment. I've opted to keep it in the "Cricket career" section, as I feel it is integral to that overall section and opinions of him being the greatest all-rounder of the time. AA (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about moving Umpiring to the Later life and death section as it came after his retirement from playing?

MSincccc (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've gone with a separate section and renamed it "Umpiring career". I thought about merging it in with "Later life and death", but there are several more personal life things that overlap around the same time as his umpiring career, and also pre-date it, that could muddy that section and affect the overall flow. Hope that's okay :) AA (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket career (prose)
Early life and career
edit
  • "George Brown was born in Cowley in October 1887." → "George Brown was born in Cowley on 6 October 1887."
Test cricket
edit
  • "Players only innings" → "Players's only innings"
  • and were looking to strengthen their batting for the Third Test
    • Do we need the link to "test" here?
  • “who his contemporaries had struggled against” → could be simplified to “whom his contemporaries struggled against”

MSincccc (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Playing style and statistics
  • “thirteen man team” (if mentioned elsewhere) → "thirteen-man team"
    • Hyphenate since it is a compound adjective.

MSincccc (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments @MSincccc, much appreciated :) Please find my responses above. AA (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Umpiring career
  • Following his retirement from playing, Brown was one of four new appointments to the first-class umpires list ahead of the 1935 season.
  • He was omitted from the list of first-class umpires on 31 November 1936
    • November has only 30 days.
Later life and death
  • How about using the sentence:

Brown coached cricket at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst.

  • In 1935, he

, In 1931, the and In 2005,

    • The comma could have been omitted in this particular case as the article follows British English.
  • How about linking "Winchester" on first mention in the body?
Bottom line

Image review

edit
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Done. I've removed the fixed px size. And my apologies for overlooking the infobox picture. I have found where it came from. It was published in The Boys' Realm in 1922. I've amended the file information to reflect this and added US-pd. Hope this is alright! AA (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this is hosted on Commons, it will also need tagging for its country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Michael Aurel

edit

Hi AssociateAffiliate. I'd be happy to take a look at this. I'll hopefully give my review in the next few days. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a bit tardy here; I had meant to get to this earlier.

  • who played in seven Test matches between 1921 and 1923 and had an extensive domestic career in English county cricket with Hampshire between 1908 and 1933. – Would the second "between ... and" work better as "from ... to", perhaps? It sounds a little more natural to me than "had a career between ...".
  • Despite not being Hampshire's regular wicket-keeper, Hmm. The OED seems to give the word as "wicketkeeper", as do the Cambridge Dictionary and Merriam-Webster. I would tend to lean in the direction of those dictionaries.
  • Comment. Although interchangeable, I wonder if the article on here, that is title "Wicket-keeper" needs to be renamed. Might raise this on the cricket project talk page. AA (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do notice "wicket-keeper" appears somewhat commonly in a Google Scholar search; "wicketkeeper" seems to be a little more common, though. In any case, this is hardly a showstopper (or a show-stopper, I guess), so I'll strike this point. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He performed well against the Australian fast bowlers Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald and was described as "one of the few English heroes of the ill-starred 1921 Tests". – As I think this probably qualifies as an opinion, I'd consider specifying who said or wrote this (per WP:Manual of Style#Attribution: The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion).
  • He subsequently toured South Africa in 1922–23, – I think "subsequently" can probably be omitted here (as 1922 comes after 1921).
  • An aggressive left-handed batsman, for Hampshire he scored 22,962 runs from 539 appearances. His runs aggregate for Hampshire is only bettered by Roy Marshall and Phil Mead. – If we connected these two with a semicolon, I think we'd be able to get away with omitting "for Hampshire" the second time. If you think this might lead to ambiguity, you could instead write "for the county" or "for the team" the second time.
  • Done. Gone with your second option, as I can see this perhaps being ambiguious for other reviewers, from previous experience! AA (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems I didn't notice when suggesting this that we use "for the county" in the next sentence (He took 602 wickets for the county with his). Sorry about that: maybe switch the second "for the county" to "for Hampshire"? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He took 602 wickets for the county with his right-arm medium pace bowling, that was delivered with sharp, late outswing. – "which was" sounds better here to me.
  • In the early years of his career, his bowling was said to have bordered on being genuinely fast. – Unless there's a reason to highlight the time difference between him doing the bowling and people describing it, I think we can write "his bowling was said to border on".
Hmm, it's possible this suggestion was missed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also add a link to Fast bowling, as otherwise I think this might sound as though we're using "fast" in the regular sense of the English word.
  • He was a renowned fielder, and by 1920 he was considered "the finest fielder in the world". – Similarly to above, I think this qualifies as an opinion, so I'd suggest adding attribution.
  • In his entire first-class career he took 567 catches and made 79 stumpings. – Hmm. Above we stated that he took 568 catches and made 78 stumpings; is there a reason the numbers are different? I'm also not sure we need to state this information again.
  • Remarking on his all-round capabilities, the cricket historian John Arlott would later write that he was "the most complete all-round cricketer the game has ever known". – I would probably omit "Remarking on his all-round capabilities", as this is already made clear by the quote itself.
  • Feel free to push back here, but we include three quotes in the lead, each of which calls him "the best" at an aspect of the game. This might be a little too much. I would probably preference the opinion of a historian over that of a teammate, for example.
  • Done. Yeah, on reflection, the comment by Kennedy doesn't hold as much weight to be in the lead. I have retained it later in the article, to allude to the high esteem his "part-time" wicketkeeping was held in by his contemporaries. AA (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • After his playing career, Brown settled in Winchester. There he became a publican and later a parking attendant. – These two sentences are quite short. I'd suggest combining them.
  • In his latter years he was afflicted by several illnesses. He died in hospital in Winchester on 3 December 1964, aged 77. – As above, I would consider combining these two short sentences.
  • Done. Merged. Though, I'm trying to word it, and each time I look at this it sounds "off": "In his latter years he was afflicted by several illnesses, with Brown dying in hospital in Winchester on 3 December 1964, aged 77." AA (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe In his latter years he was afflicted by several illnesses, and he died in hospital in Winchester on 3 December 1964, aged 77? Another option would be to combine them with a semicolon: In his latter years he was afflicted by several illnesses; he died in hospital in Winchester on 3 December 1964, aged 77. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early adulthood he worked at the Littlemore Hospital near Oxford, – You could link Oxford, if you wanted.
  • It was while playing against Oxford University that he was observed by C. B. Fry, – I think this could be slightly shortened to "While playing against Oxford University, he was observed by C. B. Fry,"
  • He was then offered a cricket trial at Hampshire in 1906, – We did mention "cricket" above, so if we want to link to it, we should probably do so there. Also, by "Hampshire", do you mean the place or the team? If it's the latter (which is what the link suggests), would "with" work better, perhaps?
  • walking the 60 miles (97 km) from Oxford to Southampton hauling his possessions in a tin trunk. – Not sure this quite works: I'd add a "while" in front of "hauling".
  • With his medium pace bowling, he took 39 wickets at a bowling average of 25.03. – The second "bowling" can probably be omitted, as I think it's implied that this is his bowling average (rather than a different sort of average).
  • In just his second County Championship match, he claimed his maiden five wicket haul with figures 5 for 47 against Somerset; – I think "five-wicket" should be hyphenated here. Also, I'd add an "of" after "figures".
  • he took five wickets or more in an innings twice more during the season. – A bit picky, but perhaps do something like "he took five or more wickets in two further innings during the season", to avoid the repetition of "more"?
  • Not a big deal, but we do use "first-class" a fair bit in this section, especially as part of the phrase "first-class appearances". I'd consider cutting it in a few places.
  • In the same number of first-class appearances in 1910, Brown scored – I'd probably just go for "In 23 appearances", as some readers won't recall the number of appearances we mentioned in the previous paragraph (there are quite a few numbers in that paragraph).
  • averaging 22.56 and taking one five wicket haul. – As above, I think this should be hyphenated.
  • In the 1911 English season, he had his most successful season as a bowler, – I'd consider shortening this to something like "The 1911 English season was his most successful as a bowler" (this might require altering the position of the semicolon after this).
  • Done. I have reworded this section to read: "The 1911 English season was his most successful season as a bowler, taking 88 wickets at an average of 25.89. He claimed five or more wickets in an innings on five occasions and ten-wickets in a match once; he ended the season as Hampshire's leading wicket-taker in the County Championship, 20 ahead of Newman's 67 wickets."
  • Hmm. We have three sentences on his bowling in 1911, and include three different "x wickets in a match/an innings" statistics. I'd probably remove the sentence about the six-wicket hauls, as we mention he took five or more wickets on five occasions, which I think most readers will assume probably included at least one or two innings where he took 6 wickets. Let me know what you think.
  • Done. I did consider making note of his season best figures being 6 for 24 against Somerset, but in reflection, it doesn't really add much in the grand scheme, so have removed it. AA (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He ended the season as Hampshire's leading wicket-taker in the County Championship, 20 ahead of Newman's 67 wickets. – Unless I'm missing something, we state above that he took 88, but 20 + 67 = 87.
  • Done. Sorry, I should have been clearer. He took 88 wickets that season, but played for the MCC earlier in the season, with his bowling being used sparingly, resulting in him taking one wicket. The remainder were in the County Championship. Worth a footnote? AA (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brown was less prolific in 1912, scoring 630 runs at an average of 20.32 from 29 appearances, – This is probably an annoying one: we use the phrase "at an average of x" quite a lot in this section, and "at an average of x from y appearances" is fairly common here too. If possible, I'd swap some of these out for similar phrases like "averaging x" and "over y matches".
  • He did, however, play an important part in Hampshire's defeat of the touring Australians, taking four key wickets in the match. – I think "in the match" can be omitted here (as I don't think it would've been possible for him to take them outside the match).
  • for the second time and taking his career best bowling figures. – This should be hyphenated, I think. I'd also swap out "taking his" for "achieving", because we use "taking" quite a bit.
  • With the bat, he scored with 1,263 runs at an average of 25.26. – Spare "with". The "With the bat" also feels fairly similar to the first part of the previous sentence. Not sure what's best here: you could merge this information into that sentence, or it might even be appropriate to omit this information altogether, as we've imparted quite a few numbers to the reader at this point.
  • partnership of 325 runs with Cecil Abercrombie (165 runs); – A bit picky, but maybe write this out as "who contributed 165 runs"?
  • With the ball, he was Hampshire's second highest wicket-taker – "second-highest" should be hyphenated, I think.
  • He achieved his career-best bowling figures (8 for 55) against Gloucestershire at Cheltenham, – Hmm. Because we stated this in an earlier sentence, I'd see if the repetition can be removed: I think it works better here, where it's placed in context. I also think that some could interpret "taking his career-best bowling figures" in that earlier sentence to mean he took more wickets in that year than any other in his career.
  • a bowling display characterised by him eliciting considerable swing. – "a bowling display characterised by considerable swing"?
  • In the 1914 season, that was truncated in August by the outbreak of the First World War, – I think "that" should be "which"
  • but did not manage to score a century. – I think "manage to" can probably be omitted here.
  • With the ball, he took 54 wickets at an average of 27.85, but did not achieve any five wicket hauls. – Hyphenate.
  • Done. And removed "with the ball", a habit I have noticed I have fallen into. How else would he take wickets? Not with the bat, a boomerang, or any other object! AA (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the MCC President Francis Lacey confirming the cessation of cricket during the war, first-class cricket in England was suspended until 1919. – This reads a little more naturally to me if it starts with "The MCC President Francis Lacey confirmed ...", as otherwise it might sound as though it was decided in 1914 that 1919 was the year they would return to playing cricket.
  • Done. Now reads: "The MCC President Francis Lacey confirmed the cessation of cricket during the war, with first-class cricket in England remaining suspended until 1919."
  • Unlike many of his peers, Brown did not immediately sign up for service in the war. – I think this could probably be shortened a little: maybe "did not immediately enlist"?
  • In February 1915, he was made superintendent of a recreation hall built for troops near Southampton Docks – Hmm. Was the hall located near Southampton Docks or was it created for use by troops who lived near Southampton Docks?
  • Done. Ah yes, I can see that is ambiguous. Reworded to: "In February 1915, he was made superintendent of a recreation hall built near Southampton Docks which had been furnished by Hampshire County Cricket Club and was to be used by troops."
  • He would be conscripted in 1917, – "was", maybe?
  • He would be conscripted in 1917, though he did not see action. He was discharged in August 1918, on account of rheumatism. – As these sentences are fairly short, I suggest combining them.
  • After the conclusion of the war, Brown returned to a Hampshire team – If possible, I'd omit "the conclusion of".
  • a Hampshire team that had been greatly weakened by the deaths of several pre-war players in the conflict. – I think "pre-war" isn't needed here (as I don't think there was any chance of these dead players continuing their playing careers after the war!). I also think we could get away with omitting "in the conflict", as that's implied.
  • Upon the resumption of first-class cricket in 1919, Brown was selected to represent ... in July, – As we've stated earlier that first-class cricket resumed in 1919, I'd omit that here. Would just "In July 1919, ..." work?
  • represent the Players for the first time in the Gentlemen versus Players match at The Oval – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I'd give a very brief explanation of what this match was, and who made up the two sides.
  • Done. I have explained who played for who, and why (with a reference). As for the matches themselves, they were "exhibition" matches, loosely tied with selection to the Test team - i.e., someone performed well in this match, they could earn a call to play in a Test, though this was never officially their purpose, and at times the teams were quite weak, particularly the amateurs. AA (talk)
  • whilst later in the season he was chosen to play for the South against the Australian Imperial Forces. – Hmm. These two weren't happening at the same time, and I don't think there's a contrast between the statements, so I'm not sure "whilst" is the right word here. The best solution might be to split these sentences, after the explanation about the Gentlemen v Players match is added.
  • Done and comment Sentence split, I'll insert a brief explanation of what the context of the match was and who made up the teams in terms of "status". AA (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Across the 1919 season, Brown made 19 first-class appearances. In these, he scored – I think these could be combined: "appearances, scoring ..." (this might require tweaking the later part of the sentence).
  • he kept wicket in place of Sydney Maartensz, who was himself deputising for Walter Livsey who was still on active military service. – If possible, I'd avoid the double "who was": maybe omit the first and add a comma after "Livsey"?
  • Done. Though for some reason, the sentence annoys me. What do you think? "In the latter half of the season, he kept wicket in place of Sydney Maartensz who had been deputising for Walter Livsey, who was still on active military service."
  • Despite his bowling being used sparingly in the season (he bowled just 387 balls and took 5 wickets), – I'd go for something like "Despite the sparing use of his bowling". Alternatively, we could just start with "Though he bowled only 387 balls ...".
  • he was adjudged in August 1919 to be the best all-rounder in England. – I'd say who it was that made this judgement.
  • he made six centuries during the season, including two double-centuries in June. – Hmm, should "double-century" be hyphenated?
  • The first, an unbeaten 232, contributed to an innings victory against the – Hmm. By "innings victory", do we mean they won without needing to bat a second time? If so, I might spell this out a bit more, for readers without a cricketing background.
  • Done. Footnote added: " A victory by an innings refers to the team bowling last winning the game, having only batted one innings compared to its opponent's two, thereby winning by an innings and a number of runs." AA (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • against the reigning County Champions Yorkshire; – This reads a little more naturally to me with a comma before "Yorkshire".
  • the second, a score of 230, came against Essex in August in a drawn match – Earlier we said that both double-centuries were made in June. I'd make this consistent.
  • a record that would stand until 2011, when surpassed by James Adams and Michael Carberry. – "when it was", I think.
  • He would end the season as Hampshire's leading run scorer in the County Championship. – I'd write "ended the season". It might also be worth using his name again, as we've referred to other people in the previous sentence.
  • Brown ended the season with 26 wickets at an average of 30.96 in the County Championship. – As we ended the previous sentence with "in the County Championship", I'd omit that phrase here.
  • During the season, Brown made his second appearance in – As I think we're already temporally situated in this season, I'm not sure "During this season" is needed. If we know the month, noting that instead might be good.
Just one minor follow-up point: if possible, see if the "Brown ended the season" phrase in With Kennedy and Newman leading Hampshire's bowling attack, Brown ended the season with 26 wickets at an average of 30.96 can be switched up, as we use the same wording in the previous sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Now reads: "With Kennedy and Newman leading Hampshire's bowling attack in 1920, Brown only took 26 wickets at an average of 30.96." Though I am wondering if "1920" is needed. AA (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brown made his second appearance in Gentlemen versus Players match – "a Gentlemen versus Players match"
  • Gentlemen versus Players match at Lord's – I think this technically reads that saying this was the second such match he'd played at Lord's, whereas above we wrote that the previous match was held at The Oval. Something like "match, which was held at Lord's" might work.
  • Midway through the season, Accrington of the Lancashire League attempted to sign Brown as their professional for the 1921 season, – Is there a word missing before "for", perhaps?

This is down to the end of the "Post-war resumption" section. Everything here is in pretty good order, especially considering this didn't go through a GA review. Looking forward to your responses. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to do such a thorough review of the first 3 sections, please find by responses above, with some queries. AA (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for your very prompt responses. Let's hope I can be just as prompt with the next part of the review! – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I've responded to some other suggestions and ones I needed to get around to doing. AA (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on:

  • The match was played after England has suffered two heavy defeats against Australia in the 1921 Ashes series, – "had" works better, I think
  • Making his Test debut at Headingley, Brown made a half century – Maybe switch out "Making" for "On", so as to avoid two "make/made" words?
  • Brown made a half century (57 runs) from the middle order in – Hmm, should "half-century" be hyphenated? Also, I think I might have missed this above (so I'd check for it elsewhere, if you do think it should be changed).
  • In the Fourth Test at Old Trafford, he made 31 runs opening the batting in England's only innings of a rain affected match, – I'd hyphenate "rain-affected" here.
  • while in the drawn Fifth Test he made scores of 32 and 84 opening the batting, – As I'm not sure there's a genuine contrast here, I'd consider using "and" in place of "while".
  • in the drawn Fifth Test he made scores of 32 and 84 opening the batting, sharing in a partnership of 158 runs for the first wicket with Jack Russell in England's second innings – Some slight trimming might be possible here: would something like "in the drawn Fifth Test he opened the batting and scored 32 and 84, the latter as part of a first-wicket partnership of 158 runs with Jack Russell" work? I think the "second innings" part is implied this way.
I think this didn't fully make it into the article, so I've implemented the rest of the wording myself. Hopefully that's alright. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Arlott remarking how he had played well against the fast bowlers Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald, – As this seems to be the first place we mention him in the body, I'd use his full name, link him, and include the short introduction ("cricket historian").
  • Done. Now properly introduced.
  • the fast bowlers Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald, whom his contemporaries struggled against – A nitpick: "against whom his contemporaries struggled" sounds slightly more natural to me.
  • Brown made 28 appearances in 1922, scored 988 runs at an average of 21.18, whilst taking 17 wickets at an average of 34.94 – Nothing wrong with this sentence itself, but it reads quite similarly to the previous one: if possible, I'd try to switch up the wording a little.
  • He played in the team that opposed Warwickshire at Edgbaston in the County Championship in June, that resulted in an unlikely victory for Hampshire. – Hmm. The words "opposed" and "that" read a little awkwardly here to me: would something like "In the County Championship in June, he played in an unlikely victory against Warwickshire ..." work? I think the mention of his team can probably be elided (as it's been mentioned above).
  • Done. I've had a go at rewording his a little: "He played in an unlikely victory by 155 runs against Warwickshire at Edgbaston in the County Championship in June. Hampshire were all out (I've linked "all out" to End of an innings) for 15 runs in their first innings, with Brown one of eight batsmen to be dismissed without scoring]], and were forced to follow on 228 runs behind. I felt inserting "Hampshire" made it read more naturally than before, and added "all out" to repeat the use of "dismissed" twice in short succession. How does that read? AA (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hampshire were forced to follow-on 228 runs behind – I'd delink "follow-on", as it was mentioned above. Also, I wonder if "follow on" should have the hyphen when it's used as a verb? (This might apply above as well.)
  • behind; They performed better in the second innings, – Generally, I wouldn't use a capital letter after a semicolon. Convert to a full stop, maybe?
  • a partnership of 177 runs for the ninth wicket with Livsey, that was made in only 140 minutes. – "which" is better here, I think.
  • Brown's innings was crucial to Hampshire's eventual victory by 155 runs. – Hmm, this feels a tad redundant to me, as we said earlier that he was the top scorer, and we've mentioned that they won the match. The "155 runs" could probably be worked into an earlier sentence, if you wanted.
  • Done. Rejigged the "155 runs" and omitted the remainder. AA (talk)
  • Livsey broke a finger in the tour match against North Eastern Districts and so Brown kept-wicket. – Shouldn't be hyphenated, I don't think.
  • Brown's batting declined over the following three seasons, with him failing to pass a thousand runs in a season from 1923 to 1925 and his batting average not surpassing 23. – I think this can be compacted a little: something like "Brown's batting declined from 1923 to 1925, each season scoring less than a thousand runs and averaging less than 23", maybe?
  • Done. Now reads: Brown's batting declined from 1923 to 1925, scoring less than a thousand runs in each season and averaging under 23. Have used "under" to avoid a double use of "less". AA (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had his most successful season in the 1926 season, – Maybe "The 1926 season was his most successful"?
  • surpassing 2,000 runs ... His 2,040 runs from 31 matches ... Despite passing 2,000 runs, – I'd see if this can be condensed a little.
  • Done. Starting from "The 1926 season..." now reads: "The 1926 season was his most successful, scoring 2,040 runs from 31 matches at an average of exactly 40, with six centuries. Despite surpassing 2,000 runs for the only time in his career, he was not Hampshire's leading run-scorer in the County Championship; that accolade belonged to Mead (2,274 runs).". How's that? AA (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • His five centuries by July earned him a recall to the England Test team for the Fifth Test – I'd omit "to the England Test team" here, as I think that's implied.
  • of the 1926 Ashes series, however he injured his thumb making his sixth century of the season against Leicestershire immediately before the Test, – Not sure "however" quite works here: maybe go for a semicolon ("series; however, he injured")?
  • the Folkestone Cricket Festival, where he played one match each – Definitely a nitpick, but "playing one match each", maybe?
  • the touring party for the MCC's winter tour of India and Ceylon, that lasted from November 1926 to February 1927. – "which", I think.
  • Playing in sixteen first-class matches on the Indian leg of tour, – "the tour"
  • Playing in sixteen first-class matches on the Indian leg of tour, he scored 591 runs at an average of 26.86, and in Ceylon he played in two first-class matches, scoring 79 runs. – Could this perhaps be shortened to something like "He played in sixteen first-class matches on the Indian leg of tour, scoring 591 runs at an average of 26.86, and two first-class matches in Ceylon, scoring 79 runs"?
  • He scored four centuries and made his third career double century, – A bit of a nitpick, but maybe "scored four centuries, including his third career double century"?
  • In 1928, he was afforded a benefit match at the end of June against Surrey, – Assuming it's the correct link, you could add Surrey County Cricket Club.
  • Brown tore a ligament in the match; this kept him out of the Hampshire team for three weeks and limited his appearances to 18. – As the first part is fairly short here, I think this might work better without the semicolon ("match, keeping him out ...").
  • He made 27 appearances in 1929, – As we used "appearances" near the end of the last sentence, maybe write "played 27 matches"?
  • Brown found himself deputising for Livsey as wicket-keeper – I'd probably go for "Brown deputised".
  • he had returned home ill from a winter coaching engagement in South Africa and was subsequently invalided out for the entire season. In 32 appearances in 1930, Brown scored – Hmm. Let me know if I'm missing something here, but how did he play 32 matches if he was invalided out for the whole season?
    Oops, I've just realised we meant that Livsey returned home ill. Maybe write "after the latter had returned home ill", in case others read it the same way? – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Haha, no worries. I went with: "Brown deputised for Livsey as wicket-keeper at the beginning of the 1930 season, after Livsey had returned home ill from a winter coaching engagement in South Africa and was invalided out for the entire season." AA (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • as wicket-keeping, he took 48 catches and made 16 stumpings. – "wicket-keeper"
  • He scored 1,032 runs at an average of exactly 24, and took 37 catches and made 13 stumpings keeping-wicket. – To me, this would read slightly better as a list ("24, took 37 catches, and ..."). I also think "keeping-wicket" could be omitted here.
exactly 24, took 37 catches and made 13 stumpings – Super minor, but we use an Oxford comma elsewhere, so I'd do so here as well. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brown toured Jamaica with Lord Tennyson's thirteen–man team – Hyphen rather than endash ("-" vs "–").
  • In the 1933 season, Brown made 26 appearances, scoring 1,075 runs at an average of exactly 25. – Nothing wrong with this on its own, but the wording is similar to the previous sentence, so I'd see if it can be varied up a bit.
That's good, thanks. One more thought: to avoid the "scoring x at an average of y" phrasing, could we perhaps switch scoring 1,075 runs at an average of exactly 25 to scoring 1,075 runs and averaging exactly 25? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • His season was interrupted in June by a fractured skull that caused him to miss some matches. – As "season was interrupted" and "miss some matches" feel similar in nature, maybe go for something like "In June, he fractured his skull, causing ..."? Also, do we know the number of matches he missed?
  • Done and comment. Went with that wording. In terms of matches missed, he was out between 21 June and 12 July, during which time Hampshire played three matches. Would it be presumptive or WP:OR to assume he would have played in all three? He almost certainly would have, but would it be supposition? AA (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the source specifies that three matches took place in that time, I think we're in the clear to say that he "missed" them. If the source gives those dates, and these matches were occurring at very regular intervals (such as once a week, which the dates you've given would seem to suggest), then I think it's also fine. If not, I think there are ways around this (including opting for something "miss several matches", which is a little more precise). Let me know what you think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • retire from first-class cricket at the end of the 1933 season to play for Rishton in the Lancashire League, – I'd link Rishton Cricket Club
  • He was injured in an accident prior to the start of the season, with him not sufficiently recovering to play during the summer. – "and did not sufficiently recover" sounds a tad more natural to me.
  • He subsequently retired in September, alongside Kennedy. – I think "subsequently" can probably be omitted here. Also, you could connect this to the previous sentence with a semicolon, as it's quite short.
  • he was granted a testimonial in 1934 that raised £292, which was presented to Brown in December by Sir Russell Bencraft. – I think "Brown" could probably be replaced with "him".

This is down to the end of the "Later career" section. I'll hopefully finish up the rest tomorrow. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for another thorough review of those sections. Please find my responses above. AA (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is down to the end:

  • The cricket writer Bill Frindall later described Brown as – By "later", I think we mean that these comments were made after Brown's death? As this isn't entirely explicit, perhaps replace it with "in 1989" or omit it?
  • Summarising his all-round credentials, A. A. Thomson – This seems to be the second mention in the body, so I'd omit the link and initials here.
  • A. A. Thomson wrote he "could bat, bowl, [and] keep wicket". – Perhaps personal taste, but "wrote that" sounds slightly more natural to me.
  • He was adept at both hooking and driving the ball, in addition to his own shot – I didn't know what "hooking" was, admittedly. Maybe go for a link to wikt:hook shot or Batting (cricket)#Pull and hook? There's perhaps an argument that a similar link should be added to "driving", though that one might be more self-explanatory.
  • in addition to his own shot – the whip – that was a forward shot played to any ball that was fast and short. – "which" sounds a little better in place of the first "that", to me. Alternatively, I think "the whip – a forward shot ..." would work.
  • Conversely, E. W. Swanton theorised that Brown's approach was more a reflection of his mood on the day, as opposed to the state of the match, an opinion matched by Arlott. – "matched" basically makes sense here, though "shared" sounds a little more natural to me (and we also use "match" a few words earlier).
  • His physical strength also enabled him to bowl long spells. – Nothing amiss with the wording here, but "spell" might be a little cricket-ese. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a perfect linking option here: I don't think we can link to the specific "spell" entry at Glossary of cricket terms (only the section), and it's difficult to find the relevant definition at wikt:spell. Alternatively, you could give a brief explanation of the term in brackets or, if it doesn't change the meaning too much, rephrase this to something like "bowl for long periods of time".
  • Brown's bowling bordered on being genuinely fast, with him utilising sharp, late outswing. – I'd link outswinger. And sorry to slap you with the style guides, but I'd just write "used" (see, for example, Gowers on "utilised").
  • He would score a thousand runs or more in a season on eleven occasions. – "scored", maybe?
  • For Hampshire he made 539 appearances, scoring 22,962 runs; he has the third-highest number of runs for Hampshire in first-class cricket, behind Roy Marshall and Mead. – As we use "for Hampshire" a few times across this and the next sentence, maybe swap the second out for "the county"?
  • He made 37 centuries, all for Hampshire, alongside 96 half-centuries for the county. – Maybe "He made 37 centuries and 96 half-centuries for Hampshire"?
  • He shared in a three-figure partnership for every Hampshire wicket, except the sixth. – I don't think there's much chance of "every Hampshire wicket" being read as "every wicket in Hampshire", but the phrase does read slightly oddly to me, and it might be ideal to avoid another use of "Hampshire". If we appended this to the previous sentence, I think we'd be able to write something like "and shared in a three-figure partnership for each wicket, except the sixth".
  • He took 626 wickets at an average of 29.81 in his career, while for Hampshire he took 602 wickets, – As I'm not sure there's a genuine contrast here, maybe write "602 of which were for Hampshire"?
  • taking five-wickets or more in an innings on 23 occasions and ten-wickets in a match twice. – No hyphens here, I think.
  • drawing comparisons to Percy Chapman. – I think this could sound as though Thomson was the one making these comparisons. Something like "with E. W. Swanton comparing him to Percy Chapman" could work. It might also be worth noting Chapman's fielding ability, so it's a little clearer why this comparison is significant.
  • with the Hampshire Advertiser considering Brown to be "the finest fielder in the world" in 1920 – I'd use "him" for "Brown"
  • In his entire first-class career he took 567 catches and made 79 stumpings, – As "stumpings" was mentioned above, I'd recommend transferring the link there (the first mention seems to be he took 48 catches and made 16 stumpings).
  • He spent two seasons on the list, standing in 45 first-class matches. – As we mentioned it as the first-class list in the previous sentence, I think we'd be able to omit "first-class" here.
  • an experimental law was introduced in which the batsman could be dismissed leg before wicket (lbw) even if the ball pitched outside the line of off stump. – I fear this might be a little technical for non-cricket fans. Maybe add a link to Stump (cricket)#Part of the wicket? Another option would be to point the reader to Leg before wicket#Definition, which contains a good explanation of the concept.
  • In an opening match of 1935 County Championship between Kent and Leicestershire, Brown became the first umpire – I'd write "match of the 1935 ...".
  • Also, is "the" opening match correct here? If not, maybe write "In one of the first matches of the ..." or something similar?
  • Comment. Strictly speaking, yes, as it was one of the first round of matches in the County Championship. However, the wording you have used is much simplier and concise. AA (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not the first time that Brown had encountered legal troubles. – Hmm. I initially read this as saying that Brown himself was the one who had been in trouble. More broadly, this story seems a tad out of place to me, as chronologically it fits into the section above. You could try working it into that earlier section, but I understand it might seem out of place there too, given the title is "Cricket career". Another option would be to remove this altogether, if that seems appropriate (that his son-in-law was convicted for assaulting him doesn't feel as though it's super crucial information about Brown himself).
  • In 1931 the estranged husband of his daughter and several of his family members – This only applies if we keep this part: I'd clarify whether we're referring to Brown's family members or the family members of the husband.
  • Brown had a son, also called George, who served as a police officer during the Second World War – Maybe "Brown had a son, George"?
  • In his latter years, he overcame several illnesses that Arlott remarked "only his mighty constitution could have survived". – "which" works a little better here, to my ears.
  • He was subsequently cremated and his ashes spread over the County Ground in Southampton – I think we could probably omit "subsequently" here.
  • the presence of cricketing peers and family; family members present included his wife, Mabel, and his daughter. – I think this could be condensed a little: something along the lines of "the presence of cricketing peers and family members, including his wife, Mabel, and daughter" would work.

Everything here seems nicely done to me: the writing is clear and accessible, and the coverage looks comprehensive. I don't see any issues with the sources, which include print books, and seem to be reliable and appropriate to the topic. The above suggestions consist mostly of minor prose recommendations, and I see nothing substantial standing in the way of a support. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just come back from a long weekend in Moldova, shall get back to this! AA (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for a very thorough review. Please find above my responses to the last part of your review. Cheers, AA (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate: Wow! That sounds like an enjoyable trip. Thanks for your collegiality during this review. Everything looks good here to me, so I'm happy to support. – Michael Aurel (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A thoroughly enjoyable trip, despite the -12°C temperature! Thank you for taking the time to do such an in-depth review. It's been very helpful and given me some pointers I've copied over to Dimitri Mascarenhas, who I hope will be an FA at some point in the coming months. Cheers again, AA (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Seven weeks have passed, and only two general supports have been received. Unless this nomination shows significant progress toward a consensus for promotion within the next three or four days, I'm afraid it will have to be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG Could this nomination be added to FAC urgents? MSincccc (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG second this! Would be a shame for the efforts of MSincccc and Michael Aurel to go to waste :( AA (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley

edit

An excellent article which I am confident I shall be able to support for FA. Speaking as a right-hand bat and left-arm bowler (hopeless at both) I find this chap rather disorienting, but no matter. A few minor quibbles:

  • Info-box: not sure "Role: Wicket-keeper" is quite right as he was sometimes the keeper of choice but often the deputy, and if I read the article aright was at least as valued for batting and bowling as for keeping wicket. Might "All-rounder" be more the mark?
  • Fowler (current edition) calls your spelling of "fulfil" as "fulfill" an Americanism. (I think the Americans have logic on their side, but for such a British subject as cricket I recommend the shorter, BrE, spelling.)
  • "continued to play county cricket with Hampshire until 1933, with injury forcing him to retire" – reads rather lamely: I suggest something like "… until 1933, when injury forced him …".
  • In fact your predilection for "with such and such happening or so and so saying" becomes a bit repetitive: with him scoring 298 runs ... with Brown one of eight batsmen to be dismissed ... with the cricket historian John Arlott remarking … with Brown top-scoring with 172 runs ... with Arlott witnessing his death … with Arlott reading a eulogy. Some or all could be replaced by a semicolon and then "Arlott read a eulogy" and so forth.
  • Done. I've kept one, reworded some, and used semicolons on a couple. How do these read now?
  • "with him scoring 298 runs" → "who scored 298 runs at an average"
  • "with Brown one of eight batsmen to be dismissed" reworded this to read: "Hampshire were dismissed for 15 runs in their first innings and were forced to follow on 228 runs behind; Brown was one of eight batsmen to be dismissed without scoring".
  • "with Brown top-scoring with 172 runs". Similar to above, have reworded/restructured to now read: "They performed better in the second innings, making 521 runs. Brown top-scored with 172 runs and shared in a partnership of 177 runs for the ninth wicket with Livsey, which was made in only 140 minutes."
  • "with the cricket historian John Arlott remarking". I've kept "with the..." here, as a semicolon felt out of place and trying to reword it wasn't bringing about any sentences that improved the overall flow!
  • "with Arlott witnessing his death" - have gone with the semicolon: "; his death was witnessed by Arlott".
  • "Arlott reading a eulogy" - have gone with the semicolon. AA (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • " who enquired with Brown as to whether …" – a bit wordy: why not something more concise such as "who asked Brown if …"
  • " Brown was selected to tour the West Indies with the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)" – I wonder if it worth mentioning that the MCC side was the English national touring team, or is that too obvious to need saying? Your footnote 3 goes some way to making this plain, of course.
  • Comment. Might it be prudent to have this note there as well? Only, I'm not sure you can use a note multiple times like you can a reference? The usual codes all throw up error messages. AA (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This works for me: to link twice to the same explanatory footnote use the optional "name" parameter as shown here:
  • first call{{refn|blah blah blah|group=n|name=somename}}
  • second call{{refn|group=n|name=somename}}
I hope it will work for you too. Tim riley talk 08:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this worked. Never knew this was possible! AA (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in favour of specialist wicket-keeper George Street" – clunky tabloidese false title: I suggest either "in favour of a specialist wicket-keeper, George Street," or "in favour of the specialist wicket-keeper George Street".
  • "carrying his bat with an unbeaten 150 runs" – could do with a link to "Carry the bat"
  • " Grindall remarked … Grindall also considered" – not Frindall?

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 13:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)–[reply]

Many thanks for kindly taking the time to review the article. Please find above my responses. Cheers! PS: I'm sure you'd have dismissed me on a cricket pitch, left-arm bowlers were my nemesis when I played! AA (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It is a good read, sensibly laid out and proportioned, well and widely sourced, seems clearly comprehensive, and meets all the FA criteria in my view. A pity there are only two images, but if that's all that's available, so be it. (And I was enchanted to learn that there was a bowler called Fielder.) Tim riley talk 08:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and support. Fielder, by all accounts, wasn't a bad fielder either, for a bowler! AA (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dumelow

edit

AA brought this nomination to my attention, I am happy to offer the following comments on the prose - Dumelow (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AA. Sorry, I think I messed up the positioning of this section in the overall page. Just checking you'd seen my comments. Nothing major in there - Dumelow (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dumelow. Many thanks for taking the time to review, much appreciated. I have moved your review to the bottom of the page. I've began responding to your comments, will try and address them all over the coming days. Thanks again, AA (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In early adulthood he worked at the Littlemore Hospital near Oxford,"
I assume we don't know what his job was?
  • Can we introduce C.B. Fry in some way, otherwise the reader has no idea why his opinion is relevant.
  • "He subsequently joined the ground staff at Hampshire alongside Alex Bowell, Alec Kennedy, Walter Livsey, Phil Mead, and Jack Newman; together, they formed the county's first major intake of professional cricketers"
This might be a bit confusing, were they officially paid as ground staff rather than players to avoid breaching rules around amateurs? Might warrant a footnote to explain.
  • Comment. They were officially paid as ground staff - tending to the playing area and spectator facilities, playing in friendly matches, or acting as net bowlers. This was usually the case during a trial period, or when a player was qualifying to play for the county - amateurs typically did not fall under this "category". With regard the footnote, it will be difficult to reference. The only sources that define this relationship are two self-published sources. AA (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was conscripted in 1917, though he did not see action,[23] and was discharged in August 1918, on account of rheumatism"
Do we know into what unit or branch of the military? Might be worth linking "conscripted" to Conscription in the United Kingdom.
  • Comment. I have linked to Conscription in the United Kingdom. He was in the Labour Corps, however, this is from his pension records on Ancestry.com. Per WP:RSPSOURCES, it's my understanding that Ancestry.com cannot be used as a source. AA (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, knowing his regimental number makes it much easier to look him up! His medal record card is held by the National Archives. If you have an account (or create one for free) you can download it. It records his position as a private in the Labour Corps, his enlistment date of 25 January 1916 and his discharge date of 3 August 1918. As he was discharged as "no longer physically fit for war service" (this is the reference on the card to King's Regulations paragraph 392 sub para XVI) during the war he was awarded a Silver War Badge - Dumelow (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Midway through the season, Accrington of the Lancashire League attempted to sign Brown as their professional for the 1921 season,"
Possibly worth a footnote explaining this. I presume each side was only permitted one professional player? Presumably this would have meant stepping away from the first class game?
  • Done. I've added a footnote, explaining that each member club was permitted from 1900 to field only one professional, and that professional was forbidden from playing for any other teams outside of the league when engaged by a LL club. AA (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A. A. Thomson later described him as "one of the few English heroes of the ill-starred 1921 Tests""
Again, if it doesn't break the flow too much, a brief introduction to explain who Thomson was might be helpful
  • "and were forced to follow on 228 runs behind"
Link follow-on?
  • "however, immediately before the Test he injured his thumb making his sixth century of the season against Leicestershire"
I would add a "while" before "making" here
  • "he also established a Hampshire record partnership for the third wicket of 344 runs with Mead"
Do we know how long this lasted? Seeing as we've mentioned on the others, but maybe it wasn't long?
  • "At the conclusion of the season, he participated for a second time in the Folkestone Cricket Festival."
As we've mentioned this twice and it is a redlink, I think a footnote would be useful explaining what it was
  • Done. Quite a difficult one to adequately reference, as despite the explanation of what it was being quite straightforward, written sources seem few and far between defining it. So, I've added the following note: "The Folkestone Cricket Festival was founded by Freddie Calthorpe.[62] Lasting one week at the end of the season, the festival hosted first-class matches between ad hoc representative sides and touring international teams.[63]" Ref 62 links to Calthorpe's page in the Frindall source, while Ref 63 links to a first-class match list of the ground, listing the festival matches being played at the end of the season. AA (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brown tore a ligament in the match, keeping him out of the Hampshire team for three weeks and limited his appearances to 18"
I think this should be "and limiting his appearances to 18 matches" or "and limiting him to 18 appearances"
  • "In July, he escaped serious injury after suffering a motorcycle accident that left him with extensive bruising to his face, neck and chest"
Did this further limit his appearances?
  • "In June, he fractured his skull, causing him to miss three matches."
Was he injured whilst playing?
  • Comment. My apologies, it was much less dramatic, only a finger. Not a clue where I have got skull from. Good thing you asked for details! It is not specified in news reports of the time how he ended up breaking his finger (it could have been against Somerset from 21-23 June, but he completed the match - maybe made of tough stuff!). AA (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was injured in an accident prior to the start of the season"
Presumably we don't know what this was?
  • "was presented to him in December by Sir Russell Bencraft"
Do we know what position Bencraft held at the time?
  • Done. I've mentioned how he was a Hampshire cricketer to provide a link to the club, and his role as chairman of the Southern Daily Echo at the time (he would become Hampshire president in 1936). This now reads: ..."which was presented to him in December by the chairman of the Southern Daily Echo newspaper and former Hampshire cricketer Sir Russell Bencraft. How does that sound? AA (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brown's height of 6.3 feet (1.9 m)"
This is an unusual way of measuring human height, should it be 6ft 3in?
  • "He took 626 wickets at an average of 29.81 in his career"
I would add "first-class" before "career" here as the previous sentence is about his test batting
  • I'd be tempted to link "publican" to pub as it might be unfamiliar to some readers
  • "Brown had a son, George, who served as a police officer during the Second World War and was killed in an air raid on Southampton on 30 November–1 December, with Arlott witnessing his death"
Missing a year. Also consider an alternative wording that avoids "on Southampton on"
  • Done. Good spot on the date, have added. With the wording, I swapped the first "on" for "targeting", though did also consider "against". How does that read? AA (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the 1950s, he was employed as a parking attendant in Winchester, often patrolling wearing his England cricket blazer"
I might say "Brown" here instead of he as the last sentence was about his son and Arlott.
  • "in 2005 Brown was included in a list of Hampshire cult figures"
Can we explain who this was drawn up by? Appreciate it is the source's wording but "cult" out of context gave me visions of hooded figures and secret meetings, perhaps "popular" or similar is better?
  • Done. Funny enough, I was thinking about the wording myself. I've changed per your suggestion, so that it new reads: "In 2005 Brown was included in a list of popular Hampshire cricketers, chosen by the sports journalist Pat Symes." AA (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumelow: many thanks for your review. Please find above my responses. AA (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support on the prose. I would remove the mention of conscription (this was originally cited to Stimpson), his enlistment date is before the Military Service Act 1916 received royal assent. He would have enlisted voluntarily but probably aware that he would likely be conscripted in any case. Just spotted a minor inconsistency in that the infobox says his MCC career ended in 1930 but the last mention in the text is the 1926/27 India tour. - Dumelow (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I've removed the mention of conscription and made a brief mention that in 1930 he played his last match for the MCC against Surrey at Lord's, and referenced it. Many thanks once again for taking the time to review the article and provide great feedback :) AA (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DuncanHill

edit

There is a{{sfn|Ramsbottom|Barlow|pages=10–11}} but no such work is listed, as far as I can see no such work is mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. This means that readers cannot verify the reference, and also that the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. I have tagged it as "full citation needed". DuncanHill (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting this, it has now been fixed. AA (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate: No, it hasn't been fixed. You've now got {{sfn|Ramsbottom|1900|pages=10–11}} and there is no work by Ramsbottom listed. The article is still in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. DuncanHill (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Now done. AA (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • A number of citations to Cricket Archive (which although ostensibly subscription-access I managed to access through some trickery with the back button) are mostly fine as citations to a database for simple facts.
    • Except a citation to this page for the claim "Lasting one week at the end of the season, the festival hosted first-class matches between ad hoc representative sides and touring international teams"; it'll need better sourcing than that.
  • Book sources are generally fine. The two older sources (falling under WP:AGEMATTERS) are used once each and for verifying regulations/the author's opinions.
    • Just one question, regarding Stimpson, Michael (2018). George Brown: England's Most Complete All-Round Cricketer. Littlemore: Dorch Publications.. From the lack of information about the book, the publishers, and the lack of an ISBN, am I to gather that this is essentially a self-published work? If yes, I don't think it's high-quality enough to cite; if no, and it's to be considered reliable by FA standards, why isn't it cited more?
  • Comment. This was a book with very limited editions (I don't own one and there none available online. I had to directly email the author to ask him for snippets of info), so that accounts for why it's not cited more. Some sources online that I can't reference mention him being an attendant at Littlemore. The second use of Stimpson matches his pension record that survives, but are published by Ancestry.com. And per WP:RSPSOURCES, it's my understanding that Ancestry.com cannot be used as a source. The info in Stimpson's book here matches his pension record. As for Stimpson himself, he is an Oxfordshire historian and cricket writer affiliated with The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, so for cricket stuff I would consider him reliable as an author. AA (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I'll add this tomorrow, an interesting find. Thanks for sharing it :) PS: Now added into the article under "Playing style and statistics". I see Berry also mentions Stimpson in his own article as well. AA (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Many thanks for the source review, please find my responses above. AA (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pass ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) AA (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/George_Brown_(cricketer,_born_1887)/archive1&oldid=1345406543"