Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indian Premier League seasons and results/archive1

List of Indian Premier League seasons and results

List of Indian Premier League seasons and results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Indian Premier League seasons and results/archive1

• Featured list removal candidates/List of Indian Premier League seasons and results/archive1

Nominator(s): Lourdes 18:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list is the only article in the Indian Premier League genre of multiple featured lists[1][2][3][4] that consolidates the seasons and results of all IPL seasons till date... I have tried to ensure that the article has engaging prose and lead, apart from being comprehensive and having an easy to read structure. I have only got one Featured List in the past, so am not perfect in this. Please do suggest changes for improvement to enable this to come up to FL standards. Thanks. Lourdes 18:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'm concerned this violates 3b. Most of the lead is similar to the main IPL article, and in fact, there's even more information on the seasons and results in the main article (in the "Tournament seasons and results" section) than there is in this spin-off. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks The Rambling Man for the assessment. Comparing the leads of the main article and the list (here's the diff of the comparison), I find that the similarity between the leads is with respect to who organizes IPL (BCCI) and who the winners have been. Do please advise on whether this seems an issue to you. With respect to your second point, the List focuses on differentiating the seasons, while the two tables in the main article you mention Indian Premier League#Tournament seasons and results focus on the team performances and not on season results. Do advise me on whether this seems an unresolvable issue to you. If it does, I'll withdraw this nomination as I respect your views considerably. Thanks again. Lourdes 13:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  No worries. A quick observation before I dash off for a short while, I think this list would probably benefit from having all three tables spun off into it, and in that sense the stand-alone-ness would be much easier to defend... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  Absolutely brilliant suggestion. Will work on doing this in the coming week. Lourdes 14:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - There aren't enough entries in this list to justify it being a separate page, let alone a featured list (I was told 10 entries was the minimum for a standalone list when I tried to get List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches promoted a couple of years ago). Also, I don't believe the column headers should be coloured blue like that; can we not just stick to the default table formatting? – PeeJay 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ten has never been a bright line, and if there's justification for spinning off an article from a larger one, such as that on the IPL, with appropriate additional and relevant material, it's just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • By the way PeeJay2K3, that head coach list looks pretty nifty these days, nice amount of detail in the lead sections too. It think it'd be worth nominating! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh! Fair enough then. I might nominate that later. I've also stricken my opposition above. – PeeJay 14:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'm still not a fan of the blue table headers, but it's not enough to completely oppose this nomination. However, I'm not going so far as to support the nomination just yet. – PeeJay 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
      • PeeJay2K3 first of all thanks for striking the oppose. Give me around a week to spruce this up with the brilliant suggestions given by The Rambling Man. Will ping you then and hope you love what comes out. Ty and have a great Wednesday morn. Lourdes 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment I've made a bold edit to change from the blue/smaller font/shaded table to one which is clean and accessible. It might not be to your taste, so feel to revert, or better still, start with that and embellish it. The other thing I'd say is that you have a number of references, all of which just say "Squads" or similar. It would be better to find a way to differentiate the titles of these. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Got it! Will do that! Great work on the table! Big thanks. Lourdes 02:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  Update – I have completed the work on the references titled "squads". They are all differentiated by placing the correct year/season in the title of the references as well as the term "IPL" in front. Hope that makes sense. Lourdes 03:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The Rambling Man hi again, here's the current update – I have shifted both the tables from the other articles to this spinoff list and have nuked the color background, as well as given appropriate keys and section headings. Tell me if this looks how you suggested it to be. PeeJay2K3, as promised, a ping to you. Do check it out and tell me how it looks. Thanks. Lourdes 05:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Also, a friendly ping to Nikkimaria. Wanted your help – if you have time, can you please give a quick look to the logo file used in this article and confirm whether I've used the right non-free-logo use rationale? Thanks so much. Lourdes 12:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
      • You certainly need to correct the name in the article fair use justification so it reflects exactly the name of the article(s) in which it's used. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Done :) Thanks. Lourdes 13:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Looks good to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
            • Thank you and also thanks for dropping by. Good to interact with you again. Lourdes 02:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments okay, looking much better, so some comments on the current list. "second-best paying sporting league globally" it's important to note that this is pro-rata, top players in IPL earn about $2m p.a. while top EPL footballers can earn >$20m , it's just that the season is a different length. "The inaugural 2008 IPL season " some redundancy here, I would rephrase to say something like "the inaugural IPL season, held in 2008", or something... Ditto for " the latest 2016 IPL season" "Till now, there have..." normally we'd use "As of December 2016, there have..." "double round-robin format.[16][13] " prefer to see refs in numerical order. See others... " for the playoffs' stage" just "for the playoffs" is fine. " there have been thirteen teams that have" -> "thirteen teams have". "Of these thirteen, five teams..." no need to repeat "thirteen". "won the tournament title till date" do you mean "as of December 2016"? Results table, only the number of teams is explicitly referenced, what about the venue, player of the series etc? Ensure all tables meet WP:ACCESS, per MOS:TABLE, i.e. row and col scopes. Including keys. That's enough for the moment, hope this helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you. I have worked and done all suggestions, leave the last one (the mos:table and access). I am not quite conversant with tables, therefore will take a couple of days to ensure all table guidelines including keys are met. Will ping you once am finished with the last suggestion. Thanks for taking this much time out. Lourdes 09:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC) No worries. Regarding the scopes, this edit should show you the sort of thing I mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Oh that is helpful. Will get onto this. Lourdes 10:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Phew. Finished the row and col scopes for all tables, including keys. Here's the diff of the series of edits in which I did it. Hope this is acceptable? Thanks for the guiding edit. Lourdes 11:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Just pinging The Rambling Man and PeeJay2K3 for a quick dekko and advise on whether there might be any more stuff to do here. Lourdes 08:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed (and apologies in the delay getting back to you, I must have missed the ping. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  Oh thank you so much The Rambling Man. The support from you is so lovely. Lourdes 14:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from FrB.TG

====Comments from FrB.TG==== Not something I am very familiar with but still: "from eight cities across India" in is better I think. (Done. Lourdes) "The inaugural IPL season, held in 2008" - do you need to state the year of when it was held? You figure it out in the previous sentence. Also, "inaugural" should be included in the "2008 Indian Premier League" link: "The inaugural IPL season". (Done. Lourdes) "with the latest IPL season being conducted from 9 April to 29 May 2016." No need for such specificity. The days can be scrapped. (Done. Lourdes) "with the latest IPL season being conducted from 9 April to 29 May 2016.[13] The current IPL champions are Sunrisers Hyderabad" - I would suggest combining these sentences. Something like: "with the latest IPL season being conducted from April to May 2016,[13] won by Sunrisers Hyderabad". Also, if you could get rid of the fused participle in the sentence, that would be great. (Done. Lourdes) "the top two teams play each other" - play each other? To play someone means to pretend to like them so that you can get something out of them that they wouldn't normally give you. Am I missing something here? (Done. While one alternative was "face each other', I have used "compete with each other". Lourdes) Why does MOS:DTT only apply to the IPL season results table here? (I'd already applied suggestions given by The Rambling Man to all tables. If there's anything particular you wish to be changed, please do mention and I'll get it done. Lourdes) I am talking about the grey shades (as in !scope="row") in the IPL season results table. Why does it only apply there and not other tables. It should be consistent. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC) The date formats in references are very inconsistent. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC) (Quick thanks to Cowlibob who has been kind enough to make them consistent. Lourdes) Hi FrB.TG, thanks so much for giving the feedback. I've incorporated all of them. If there's anything else, would get that done too. Thanks once more. Lourdes 05:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support (on hold; just one concern above that has not yet been addressed). Though not familiar with this particular list, I do know much about cricket. It is a great list IMO. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

FrB.TG thanks for the additional note. I've done that too. All tables, including keys, have the necessary consistency. Thanks. Lourdes 18:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Back to endorsing its promotion. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you FrB.TG. Lourdes 03:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments – Not sure a non-free image of the IPL logo is justified in this article. It would be in the main article on the topic, but I don't think it aids the understanding here. "Of these, five teams are no more a part of the tournament." "no more" → "no longer"? Ref 16 seems to be missing the last part of the page range. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Hi Giants2008. First of all, great to get your comments here. I've changed "no more" to "no longer", "83-" to "83". I'll go by your suggestion on the IPL logo. If you wish me to remove it, will do. The logo is used in two articles on Wikipedia, has the appropriate copyright use information, and in my view, gives an informative and easy-to-visually-understand look. As per IPL's copyright guidelines listed at [5], "Purely editorial use of IPL Names and IPL Marks solely for conveying information and without association with any commercial entity is permissible use." Do suggest. Lourdes 03:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I still think it doesn't belong here. The image licenses we use here don't permit entities to ban commercial use, so it wouldn't be valid as a free image, and I still believe its fair-use claim is weak. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Hi Giants2008. Done. Removed. Thanks. Lourdes 02:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support – My few issues have been resolved and this looks to meet FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wow. Thanks. Lourdes 02:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk Ref #3 is missing author information (Rohan Sen) and the date of publication. Ref #4 is missing author information (Tom Holland) and the date of publication. Ref #5 is missing the date of publication. Ref #6 is missing author information (Sarbvir Singh) and the date of publication. Ref #7 is missing author information and the date of publication. Ref #8 is missing author information and the date of publication. Ref #9 is missing author information (it should be noted it was an agency report) and the date of publication. Ref #10 needs a more specific date of publication. Ref #11 needs a more specific date of publication. Ref #12 is missing the date of publication. Ref #13 is missing the date of publication. Ref #16 is missing author information. Ref #17 is missing author information and the date of publication. Ref #18 is missing author information and the date of publication. Ref #19 is missing the date of publication. Ref #20 is missing author information and needs a more specific date of publication. Ref #21 is missing the date of publication. Ref #22 is missing the date of publication. Ref #23 is missing the date of publication. Ref #24 is missing the date of publication. Ref #25 needs a more specific date of publication. Ref #27 is missing author information and the date of publication.

Other than those referencing issues, this looks a very good article, well written and well researched. Harrias ^talk 13:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Harrias. It'll take me a couple of days to get through this. I've learnt quite some bit from this nomination. I hope in my next FL nomination, most of the standard issues would have already been dealt with by me before nominating (for example, reference structure, table formats etc). Once more, thanks for taking the time to review the references. Lourdes 05:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Harrias hello once more. I have finished all the reference updates. Here're the diffs for the same. Thanks. Lourdes 08:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support, with that tidied up, this is a great piece of work, nicely done. Harrias ^talk 09:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Harrias. Appreciate that. Lourdes 11:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.