Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1920–39)/archive3

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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 25 September 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 12:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's the charm? Hopefully, I've got a bit more time at the moment, and I can give this the go it deserves this time around. I've looked over the previous nominations, and tidied up what I think needs doing. Pinging @Ianblair23, Vensatry, and NapHit: who all reviewed before. Harrias talk 12:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Khadar Khani (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments for Khadar Khani (talk)
  • Ref #2 shows 404 error
  • Link batsman on first instance
  • Is it necessary having ESPNcricinfo in italic?
    • I figure that if it is appropriate for it to be in italics in the references (as is set by the "website" parameter) then it should be in italics in the prose, for consistency. I'm not overly fussed. The MOS is pretty ambivalent on it. Harrias talk 21:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para may need additional references
    • The only information without references comes from the table, and per MOS:LEADCITE, information that is in the lead, but is cited in the main body of the article does not need to be cited. But, if you think it is particularly contentious, there isn't an issue with adding them in. Harrias talk 21:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "....... (2–1) means that England won two matches, and their opponents won one match)" → I think the second 'won' is not needed.
    • I think it just makes it absolutely clear if it is included both times. Harrias talk 21:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In references, link ESPNcricinfo on its use. Same for others

Nice work overall. Khadar Khani (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahara4u: thanks for the review; I think I've addressed everything, though you might prefer I make some more tweaks. Harrias talk 21:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – meets the standards. 06:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

  • having previously only played Australia → shouldn't there be "against" before "Australia"?
  • some of the country's best batsmen → I think it's more encycolpedic to say "major batsmen" here
    • I think "major batsmen" is a less well-defined term that isn't commonly used in cricket, so it would be likely to cause confusion. Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • they won 8 matches and lost 3 → ...eight matches...lost three (numbers are not above ten)
    • These are comparable figures to the figures against Australia, and so by WP:NUMNOTES should be represented in the same format. Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • while they won by 10 wickets → ...ten
  • Everything else seems kinda flawless (I think there were lots of improvements from the last 2 nominations)
@Harrias: Here are my comments. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cartoon network freak: Thanks for the review – I've addressed some of the points, but don't completely agree with a couple. Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me too. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this last time and can already see that my concerns have been resolved. My only issue at the moment is that the penultimate sentence (in the lead) looks too lengthy. Perhaps, the "all-time record for any team" bit could be moved to a FN. —Vensatry (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias, please find my comments below:
  • Lead:
  • England played 120 Test matches, resulting in link Result (cricket)
  • 41 victories, 49 draws and 30 defeats replace with this ref
  • The emergence of Don Bradman as an extraordinary batsman fix link to Batting (cricket)
  • while against the West Indies they won 8 matches and lost 3 add this ref
  • England won 14 matches by an innings link innings and add this ref
  • while they won by 10 wickets on two occasions add ref from above
  • Table:
  • These three points below were raised at the previous FLC as still need to be addressed
  • 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. May I suggest just add a note after the date in both rows to explain the situation.
  • Added a note, how is it? Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test no. 178 and 214 – a comma is required between Bourda and Georgetown
  • Done. Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test no. 205 – change Kolkata to Calcutta (name didn't change until 2001)
  • Done. Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary table
  • Make the table sortable
  • Bold all the figures in the total row
  • Link the teams
  • As for the refs, you only need the totals which ref 3, 25 and 26 give and the breakdowns are 1, 2 and 3. Lose the ref column and add appropriate the pair of refs after Total matches, Home matches and Away matches.
  • Just (frustratingly) ran out of time to do this one now. Harrias talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ianblair23: I think I've ticked them all off now, just worked out the last one! Harrias talk 16:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick one, this should be called "England cricket team Test results (1920–1939)". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks The Rambling Man looks like that one changed since I last worked on these significantly. Harrias talk 16:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – All of the references appear reliable and well-formatted, and spot-checks of refs 8 and 10 revealed no problems. I'll be promoting the list shortly. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 24 September 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)/archive3&oldid=1138479618"