Talk:First-class cricket/GA1

GA review

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 12:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) 05:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article, expect the initial remarks soon! Vestrian24Bio 05:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Nimrou. Hope you're okay. Please let me know if I can help with anything, and thank you for taking this on. All the best, Jack (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments

First-class cricket (as of this rev)

• Might be beneficial to add the newer edition of classification of official cricket (March 2024) as well.

Done. Must admit, I didn't know they had reissued it.

• There is a clause for "retrospectively being demoted from First-Class status" which should be included in the Formal definition's first paragraph as well.

Done.

• Only Full member Governing bodies are allowed to decide the status of their country teams.

Done.

• "Age-group matches including U19 shall not be classified as First-Class matches" - should be included.

Done.

• Might be better to include a list of top-level first-class tournaments as well.

Done. There used to be a list but it was a mess, so I removed it. I've used the 2024 COC for this.

• If possible some photographs from the relevant eras' cricket matches would be nice.

Good idea. I'll see what I can find.

Several have been added. I think they're all relevant, and I've added an alt text to each of them. See what you think.

Vestrian24Bio 08:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@BlackJack: that's all I got, also I made some changes to the page myself hope you don't mind.. Vestrian24Bio 08:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind at all—I always do that myself. However, I had to restore the "last=ACS" parameter in the first two biblio entries, as we get harv/sfn errors without it. Jack (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Nimrou. I've added some photos. Please see what you think of them, and check the other amendments where I've commented above. Thanks again, Jack (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

One image is missing a caption; I'll proceed with spot0check tomorrow. Vestrian24Bio 09:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if we needed one there, as a caption is within the image. Anyway, it's done. Also, I wasn't entirely happy with some of the wording, linkage, and syntax in that area, so I've done some copyediting to smarten it up a bit. Thanks again, and take your time with the spot-check. No rush. All the best, Jack (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Source spot-check

• Initial check: pass. Vestrian24Bio 10:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Proper check: This table lists 9 random passages from throughout the article (19.1% of 47 total passages).

  These passages contain 11 inline citations (21.2% of 52 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hello again, Nimrou. I'm not familiar with the Veracity script. Do the query symbols in the status column mean one of us needs to take further action? Thanks again, and all the best. Jack (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'll finish them over this weekend.

  Also, happy to see you back from the short retirement, welcome back! Vestrian24Bio 14:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, Nimrou. All the best, Jack (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Before 1895
The earliest known match scorecards date from 1744 but only a few have been found before 1772.
4		espncricinfo.com	web.archive.org
5		Bowen 1970, pp. 263–264.
The cards for three 1772 matches have survived, and scorecards became increasingly common thereafter.
6		ACS 1981, pp. 21–24, 31.
Formal definition under ICC ruling, May 1947
The term "first-class cricket" was formally defined by the International Cricket Council then known as the Imperial Cricket Conference (ICC) on 19 May 1947. It was made clear that the definition "will not have retrospective effect".
12	a	Wisden 1948, p. 813.
Classification of Official Cricket
In 2010, the ICC published its Classification of Official Cricket (COC) which included the criteria with which a match must comply to achieve a desired categorisation. The purpose of the COC was to provide guidance on present and future match classification but, as in the 1947 definition, it was not to be applied retrospectively.
16	a	pulse-static-files.s3.amazona…	web.archive.org
Recognised matches and tournaments
In an appendix, the COC has a list of matches and tournaments which are "merely indicative" of the types of match that would meet the first-class definition:
15	d	images.icc-cricket.com
Retrospective statistical classification of matches played before the definitions
A key issue for the statisticians is when first-class cricket, for their statistical purposes, is deemed to have begun. Writing in 1951, Roy Webber argued that the majority of matches prior to 1864 (i.e., the year in which overarm bowling was legalised) "cannot be regarded as first-class", and their records are used "for their historical associations".
20	a	Webber 1951, pp. 9–10.
Subsequently, Webber's view was challenged by Bill Frindall who believed that 1815 should be the statistical startpoint, to encompass the entire roundarm bowling phase of cricket's history,
25		Frindall 1998, p. 1.
On the internet, the CricketArchive (CA) and ESPNcricinfo (CI) statistical databases both say the earliest first-class match was Hampshire v England at Broadhalfpenny Down on 24 and 25 June 1772. It was with this match that scorecards began to be completed and preserved on a frequent basis, enabling commencement of the sport's statistical record.
29		"Hampshire v England, 24–25 June 1772". CricketArchive. Archived from the original on 26 September …	cricketarchive.com
30		static.espncricinfo.com	web.archive.org
The ACS reported Wisden's decision in its "ACS News" page on 21 April 2022.
35	a	acscricket.com

@BlackJack: all good in spot-check. Vestrian24Bio 10:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Final review

• EARWIG shows 40.8% - possible violations; although looking at the comparison it doesn't seem problematic. Vestrian24Bio 10:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• According to link-dispenser (permalink) - all good. Vestrian24Bio 10:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Media usage:
  • File:Alfred Shaw c1895.jpg
  • File:Clarence Moody in 1929.png
  • File:ICC Dubai 1.jpg
  • File:Lord's Pavilion.jpg
  • File:Plunket Shield.jpg
  • File:Fenners1.jpg
  • File:Hambledon cricket club Broadhalfpenny Down. - geograph.org.uk - 78162.jpg

  All files have proper copyright tags, captions and alt texts. Vestrian24Bio 10:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

All else good, passing for GA. Vestrian24Bio 10:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Nimrou. That's great news as I was particularly keen to get this one through a review, the subject being a significant one. The review has been thorough, well-presented, and very useful. Once again, thank you, and all the best. Jack (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

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.