Talk:Harry Altham

Untitled

Though not entirely unbiased, I think the article is substantial enough to merit at least a B rating and have rated it accordingly. JH (talk page) 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review

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

Nominator: AssociateAffiliate (talk · contribs) 11:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 22:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Starting

Hi, AA, I'll review this one for you. It will interest me, as I often reference his history! All the best, Jack (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Cheers Jack. I see you have some GA noms too, I'll review these in the not too distant future. On nights at work at the moment, so will get an opportunity early next week. AA (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, AA. But there's no hurry, and no obligation. All the best, Jack (talk) 12:52, 15 January 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:
· · ·

Review

There were just a few tweaks, which I've done myself. This is a very interesting, and easily readable, article which is within scope, and presents a full picture of a good player who became a great historian. I'm really impressed by his modesty, especially as revealed by Jim Swanton.

I've ticked everything in the table except references, which I'll have to check later. I'll settle on a sample, and hope to complete this sometime today. Looking good. Best wishes, Jack (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

For my reference sample, I began with #4 which is used four times. I have the third edition (1986) of Barclays, but I think the biography of Harry Altham is almost certainly the same as in 1980. Anyway, it's good for all four citations. I've also checked reference nos 7, 8, 14, 21, and 26, which are all good.

So, I am pleased to promote Harry Altham, one of my favourite cricket writers, to GA status. Well done, AA. Jack (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)