Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Cricket World Cup records/archive2

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 kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Cricket World Cup records[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of Cricket World Cup records/archive1

Notified: WikiProject Cricket, Vimalkalyan (FL nominator in 2007).

This became an FL in 2007 and kept as an FL in 2009, when the standards were nowhere near today's standards. At the time, the article had more focus, rather than today where the article just includes indiscriminate amounts of WP:TRIVIA. Most of these stats are sourced entirely to ESPNcricinfo, which in part is because too many of the stats listed aren't interesting enough to a broad audience to be featured in any non-database publications. And apart from the lead, there is almost no text to explain the endless numbers of tables. Of the main article sections:

"Team records" section is mostly okay, as it focuses on the main records that people would expect to see. However, things like "Kings of league" are trivia, and that one is also unsourced
"Bowling" Overall section has so much junk- like 4 wicket hauls, which are not generally counted (as five-wicket hauls are, and they're already listed) and "Most consecutive matches taking at least one wicket", which is just trivia.
"Fielding" section is mostly okay, as it's concise
"Partnership" section is again concise
"Other" section is basically just being used as a catch all for whatever trivia people can find farming through ESPNcricinfo database. The worst offender being a grounds list which is all English grounds because England has hosted the WC way more times than anyone else. No encyclopedic value to most of these stats

In terms of the FL criteria, my assessment is as follows (pass/?/fail is my assessment of the criteria):

Prose: the prose that is there is acceptable (Overall:pass)
Lead: the text in the lead is acceptable, though some of it is not sourced anywhere in the article (Overall:?)
Comprehensiveness:
1. it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items- no, as it's just tables without text to accompany it (Overall:fail)
2. statements are sourced where they appear,- mostly yes, albeit just to databases. Some stats are using WP:SYNTH e.g. for the Australia streak where the source lists 34 matches, but the article claims 27 win streak by removing some ties/no results. Needs a proper source to say they are counted as winning 27 wins in a row (Overall:?)
3. In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists Not enough text in this article, tables alone are not sufficient in lists, they must be accompanied by significant amounts of explanatory text (Overall:fail)
Structure: lots of tables in the player records section not using {{Sortname}} for player names, so are sorting by the player's country not their surname. No row or column headers which are needed for good accessibility (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial/Internal guidelines#Making relevant row headers). Also, too many stats and sections, so difficult to navigate (Overall:fail)
Style:
1. Visual appeal: Very little text and way too many tables, thus no visual appeal (Overall:fail)
2. Media files: A few relevant images, though captions could be more explanatory about their relevance to this article e.g. what CWC records do they hold, rather than just saying "This is Ricky Ponting". Images also lack WP:ALTTEXT (Overall:?)
Stability: Some editing due to ongoing 2023 Cricket World Cup, but no edit warring (Overall:pass)

Therefore, it seems clear to me that unless a massive overhaul of this article is done, to focus scope, remove trivia and greatly increase the amount of prose related to the statistics tables, thus article is well short of current criteria to be a FL. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a first look, the list suffers from being too long and without enough context. I don't feel confident that I understand FL criteria at all, but there are examples of where this list is simply a bunch of statistical tables with pretty flags, many of which have too many columns in them anyway - for example, the run scorers table could easily lose the average, 50s and 100s columns and one of the matches or innings columns; it probably doesn't need the rank column either as there are just five listed and I don't actually see the need for sortability either.

Some the tables (King of tournament, for example) I don't actually understand what they're showing. With some consensus about which tables to remove and a commitment to watch the article we could probably get somewhere close to a reasonable list (and I'm willing to do this alone if necessary), but I imagine this might be better delisted first and then anyone who has an actually commitment to featured listing could re-nominate it perhaps. But there's probably no point even attempting that until after the current tournament is complete Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My take on these issues:

I don't think FLCR #3 is an issue; FLs only need annotations where appropriate, but if the tables are sufficiently self-explanatory, no prose is needed, and I've certainly never seen the assertion that a FL needs "significant amounts of explanatory text" (for instance, I worked on a recently promoted FL that lists almost 400 items and has minimal/zero prose outside the lead, and no concerns were raised).
The overall list structure is fine but table formatting is a mess (this spills into visual appeal as well). The team records tables are closest to good formatting, but they are missing row/column scopes and table headings, and several inappropriately use rows at the bottom spanning the full width as footers/notes. Other sections are worse (I'm particularly interested to know how the sorting arrows under Partnership were hidden – never seen that and it's definitely wrong).
I don't know enough about cricket to know if all of these stats are relevant, but I wouldn't be surprised if some are trivial.
References are out of date in many cases; access dates should fall after the most recent date for the section they cite.

It doesn't look like much has changed in the month or so since the FLCR page was created, so I'm leaning towards delisting. But The Rambling Man did a lot to update the list during its first FLRC period in 2009, so I think he deserves a notification and a chance to respond alongside the original nominator. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one option would be to revert back to the last FL state, update the records and then have a think about what else might want to be added? That's probably the least painful version if we want to maintain this as FL Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, it's tricky; FLs were not held to the same standard in 2009 as they are now, so there are still issues (missing rowscopes, poor table structures [using line breaks to line up different cells], some MOS issues), and adding four tournaments' worth of stats is no small ask itself. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave this 15 minutes or so and came to the cam conclusion really. It's possible perhaps to rescue this, but for something that I don't really think has much value anyway, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Delist this and then at least we can gut the worst of this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph2302, Blue Square Thing, The Rambling Man and RunningTiger123, I have just completed a complete rewrite of this list in order to bring this back up to the FL standards of today. If you could please review and let me know whether you have comments that would great. Thanks – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting is much better now, though it doesn't look like the table footers use proper syntax (they're just regular rows set to sort at the bottom). I am still concerned that some tables are pretty trivial; I'm not a cricket expert, but something like "Highest partnerships by wicket" feels a bit contrived. It is also not clear where the ODI records come from, and the equals sign for ranks can sort incorrectly (see "Narrowest win margins (by runs)" for an example). RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a bunch of work done here, with no opposes after 3 months and no discussion for over 6 weeks. I fixed the one sorting issue, and the "stuck at bottom" rows are fine (I think). The content issues remain, but without a consensus about the inclusion criteria, I'm going to go ahead and close this as keep for now. --Pres N 23:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been kept, 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.