Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1920–39)/archive2

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

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

England cricket team Test results (1920–39)[edit]

England cricket team Test results (1920–39) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 09:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second nomination for this one, which languished just over a year ago due to a lack of reviews. "Following on from England cricket team Test results (1877–1914), here is the next in the series. This list follows the same format as that one." As always, all comments, criticisms and nattering welcome! Harrias talk 09:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: My comments are below:
  • image needs alt text
  • Lead:
    • resulting in 41 victories, 49 draws and 30 defeats. link to Result (cricket)#Draw
    • The emergence of Don Bradman as an extraordinary batsman for Australia... link to batting (cricket)
    • The first three sentences of the second paragraph all require references.
      • These are drawn from the table, which itself is referenced. Typically, per WP:LEADCITE additional references in the lead are not necessary. Harrias talk 10:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would argue that WP:LEADCITE doesn't apply to lists as the in almost all cases only prose is in the lead. So my suggestion is to add this ref after each of three sentences. Also, could you please replace ref 3 with this this ref as this clearly shows the stats. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I completely disagree; WP:LEADCITE itself only states "in the body", rather than "in the prose", while numerous FLs have been promoted in the past without the need for us to over-reference them. Harrias talk 11:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • against the West Indies they won 8 matches and lost 3. change to eight matches and lost three as per MOS:SPELL09.
      • These are comparable figures to the figures against Australia, and so by WP:NUMNOTES should be represented in the same format. Harrias talk 10:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • while they won by 10 wickets on two occasions requires a reference.
    • Place in the Key into a table
    • In the table, the links to Lord's Cricket Ground to be changed to Lord's
    • Test no. 172 and 173 in the table – at first glance it seems like one of the dates are wrong but as it turns out two English sides were playing at the same time! This definitely needs to be explained. I found this ESPNcricinfo article which explains the situation.
    • Test no. 178 and 214 – a comma is required between Bourda and Georgetown
    • Test no. 205 – change Kolkata to Calcutta (name didn't change until 2001)
    • The biggest thing that I am going to ask of you is to provide a reference for every match result and add this as a new column.
      • Why? Every match result is provided in ref #3; I see no need to WP:OVERCITE?? Harrias talk 10:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, we usually reference the match report in every other cricketing FL. See again the current open FLs where every item in the table has a reference. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right, but in those lists, there isn't one single source that can give all the information. In this one, there is. There is simply no need to provide more references to back up information that is already supported by the sources provided. (Though I do need to check the referencing on the series scores; that might be a bit dubious. Harrias talk 11:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ianblair23: I've queried a few, will deal with the bulk of them later. Harrias talk 10:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I have replied to queries above.
Also, could you please
  • add this ref after 579 runs against Australia during the 1938 Ashes series, after when they won by 675 runs and after 10 wickets on two occasions
  • add this ref after by 562 runs during the 1934 Ashes series
  • capitalise the while in while they won by 10 wickets on two occasions
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Are you going to address the above points? Also, how about as compromise a ref for each series is added. Thoughts? – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, work has got completely hectic these past couple of weeks. Need to have a more in depth look, but I agree that a ref for each series is probably a good idea. Will try to look at the weekend, but it might end up being next week. Harrias talk 07:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I would really like to see action taken on the points raised above. It has been almost six weeks since I first posted them. – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but real-life has swamped me. If this ends up being archived (again!) because I'm too busy, at least I've got the points here to work off before I re-nominate. But I'll see if I can get to it. Harrias talk 11:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vensatry

  • "country's best batsmen" - according to whom?
    • Very quick reply to this point: ESPNcricinfo, as stated in the same sentence as that quote was taken from. Harrias talk 22:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wally Hammond was England's leading run-scorer in Tests between 1920 and 1939" - Actually, he was the leading run scorer during this time, not just for England.
  • against Test newcomers - Isn't it quite obvious that we're talking about Test cricket until now?
  • "Their largest victory by runs alone during this period was during the 1928–29 Ashes series against Australia, when they won by 675 runs ..." - 'during' is repetitive.
  • ""while they won by 10 wickets on two occasions." - I suppose this sentence was not meant to be a standalone one.
The table looks good. A fine piece of work —Vensatry (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw (again). Sadly, RL is getting in the way too much again. I thank Ianblair23 and Vensatry for their reviews. I will bring this back (again) and their comments will form the basis of further improvement prior to that nomination. Harrias talk 19:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear this Harrias. It is a good list which deserves featured status. Please renominate when you have the time. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2017 (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_list_candidates/England_cricket_team_Test_results_(1920–39)/archive2&oldid=1138479609"