Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1975–1989)/archive1

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

England cricket team Test results (1975–1989)

Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1975–1989)/archive1

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 20:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The next in the series, follows the format established in the previous FLs. I have hopefully applied all the comments and feedback from those lists into this one, but I'm sure you'll all find plenty to bring up nevertheless! As always, all feedback appreciated. Harrias ^talk 20:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing. Also, I'll probably claim Wikicup points for the review.

I'm checking all the links in the main table that correspond to matches (feel free to discuss or revert) ... so far, I've avoided one redirect.
I'm used to seeing more inline references in the main table, but if previous lists in the series passed in this format, that's good enough for me.
Code in the table looks fine (including {{sort}}, as needed).
FLC criteria:
- 1. Prose is good to go.
- 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
- 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
- 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources (but this isn't a source review). All retrieval dates are present. The WP:UPSD tool isn't getting any hits indicating unreliable sourcing.
- 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it is not a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
- 4. It is navigable.
- 5. It meets style requirements. The image is fine (but this isn't an image review).
- 6. It is stable.

Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention: IMO this doesn't need a short description, because the article title covers it, but YMMV. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate any thoughts or concerns you might have over at WP:Featured list candidates/Stearn's botanical names (U–Z)/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I genuinely can't see anything to pick up on. Nice one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'll add this to my WikiCup submissions.

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*"The West Indies were the most successful team in Test cricket," what's the context for this? Over the same period? Preceding that period?

- Added "at the time". Harrias ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" ESPNcricinfo;" oddly our article seems to only italicise the ESPN bit.
- Per MOS:TITLE: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized." I think ESPNcricinfo clearly falls into this category. Harrias ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"did not beat them at all." at all is redundant.
- Removed. Harrias ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"of their star players" I'm not sure of the encyclopedic tone of "star players".
- Rephrased to "best players". Harrias ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"followed by the West Indies. " ... against whom they played ... x matches?
- I didn't include it here, as it was already mentioned in the first paragraph that they played 29 times. Do you think it is worth repeating? Harrias ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider "win by an innings" to be purist cricket jargon, any suitable link?
- Linked to Result (cricket)#Win and loss. Harrias ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"in the 1978–79 Ashes series, when they beat Australia by 205 runs," in which Test?
- Specified in text. Harrias ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"during their visit in 1976" given the pipe, I would add "their visit" into the link.
- Done. Harrias ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"pictured batting against Australia at Trent Bridge" could add "in 1981"?
- Added. Harrias ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"St Johns" is a dab link.
- Dabbed. Harrias ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure W/L is a thing?
- You also brought this up at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1877–1914)/archive1. My reply then was "The source (ESPNcricinfo) uses W/L, hence I used it. I could change it, though it would be synthesis rather than sourced." Harrias ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. It's a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your review; I have responded to each point above. Harrias ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Inconsistent use of the publisher field in the Cite X templates

- I have removed ESPN as a publisher, if that's what you were referring to? Harrias ^talk 14:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do the individual results need to be cited?
- No, the results are given in the table reference. Harrias ^talk 14:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have some worries that the whole article is only derived from ESPNcricinfo. Is this normal for cricket?\
- ESPNcricinfo is the premier online resource for cricket. The information could also be taken from Wisdens or CricketArchive, but given that they are non-free sources, it is more accessible to use ESPNcricinfo, as it is more verifiable. Harrias ^talk 14:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guerillero: Thanks for your comments; I have responded to each. Harrias ^talk 14:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guerillero, Is this a source review? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 06:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: I think so. I didn't do a dive into if the citations back up the statements, just looking at the overall constancy of the citation style and the reliableness of the sources. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guerillero, for letting me know, added to awating promotion. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --Pres N 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.