the University cricket team with great success - Why the capital U?
In English cricket, the teams from Oxford and Cambridge are usually capitalised as "University" teams. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
which still stands in 2012 - Perhaps still stood?
It is still 2012, the record is still intact, so I think it should be present tense. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but the shift from past to present to past tense is a bit jolting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not as jolting as referring to 2012 as the past would be, in my view! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, agree to disagree here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chapman's father encouraged him to play - The elder Chapman, perhaps?
I think the current wording is more precise. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but they are both Chapman so there could be a misunderstanding. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This would leave us with "The elder Chapman encouraged him to play cricket..." or "The elder Chapman encouraged Chapman to play cricket..." or something like "Chapman senior encouraged his son to play cricket..." The first leaves the subject of the sentence confusing, the second is a bit of a mess, and the third seems convoluted. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded as half century and linked to glossary. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in a match at Eastbourne, - for or in?
In Eastbourne, but I prefer "at" to avoid "in...in". The rest of the sentence explains that he was playing for an England team. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at "selected by Archie MacLaren in a match at Eastbourne". In American / Canadian English, at least, I'd expect "for" there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But in UK English this would mean he was representing an Eastbourne team, which was not the case. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
first to defeat the tourists - Is this standard BrE? I'd say "visitors" or "visiting team"
Standard cricket terminology; visitors is ambiguous, using team leads to "team...team". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the cricket field the most interesting figure at the moment is, beyond all comparison, Mr. A. P. F. Chapman. A fortnight ago we were all lamenting his ill-success this season and wondering whether he would ever do justice to his great gifts and fulfil the hopes entertained of him in 1920. Most effectually he has put his critics to shame ... [he is] in such a position that if an England eleven had to meet Australia next week he would be picked at once with acclamation - Mr or Mr.?
Changed to Mr with no period. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the original is it Mr or Mr. ? as I recall that British English doesn't add the period, but if the original has it then it should be kept. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the newspaper article, there was a period. I just checked, and I've put it back. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hit a six - Blank stare...
Linked, as well as an earlier instance with slightly different phrasing. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the team and selectors were criticised for the defeat, Chapman was not blamed. However, his captaincy and tactics were later criticised - Criticised... criticised
