Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1946–1959)/archive1

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

England cricket team Test results (1946–1959)[edit]

England cricket team Test results (1946–1959) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 10:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The next in the series of these, this follows the same format as the FLs England cricket team Test results (1877–1914) and England cricket team Test results (1920–1939). 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! I do have an open nomination, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Laureus World Sports Award for Sportsperson of the Year with a Disability/archive1, but that has two votes of support and no outstanding comments. Harrias talk 10:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Based on your other featured lists you mentioned I'd say you got a pretty good list here. Personally, I think the summary table should be centered but both of your other lists don't have that so don't worry about it.
  • One problem I notice off the bat is check ref 6 because there's a cite error with it.
  • In the lead, you have multiple uses of "by an innings". Is that how it's supposed to be worded because it reads awkward to me. If not, I'd change it but if it's worded correctly then leave it.

That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Completely forgot about this one. Sorry about that. I offer my support now. Great job Harrias! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I find that an odd opening sentence, you probably should contextualise it here by saying something like "Between 1946 and 1959, the England cricket team...."
    This remains odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I would explicitly state that cricket had been suspended for the duration of WWII rather than just leap in with its resumption.
  • Strikes me that it's reasonably important to bring out all the Ashes results in the lead since that's the seminal cricket match-up.... Thoughts?
    • The article does mention that "against Australia they won seven and lost seventeen"? Harrias talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord's is piped to a redirect back to itself.
  • "Start Date" -> "Start date".
  • I'm not familiar with a statistic that divides wins by losses. Is that used commonly? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it odd too, it's what ESPNcricinfo uses. Harrias talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are there any English cricket publications that use a similar (odd) rating? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not something I've particularly come across elsewhere, no. Harrias talk 16:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it doesn't seem very helpful at all, unlike, say, an overall win%. By the way, I just checked and the W/L col doesn't sort correctly... Probably because of the blank cell instead of infinity... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • @The Rambling Man: I've fixed the sorting, but left the column in general. I agree that it is weird, and would similarly prefer a normal win%. However, I haven't seen a source with that statistic. I could obviously calculate it simply myself, but don't know to what extent that would be considered synthesis or original research? Harrias talk 09:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Sorry, as I've noted elsewhere, home-life has kept me pretty busy lately, but I think we're over the hill now. Got family around for Christmas, but I'm hoping to get some time soon to address these issues, and hope the delegates can be patient with me. Thanks. Harrias talk 12:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
:Hi Harrias, please find my comments below:
  • General
  • I have centered the first two columns of the main table, expanded the key and placed in a table, centre aligned and fixed the data in the summary table and placed the correct ref in the Total matches column.
  • Thanks. I don't like the centred text, but everyone else seems to be clamouring for it, so whatever. Harrias talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
  • Image needs alt text
  • link runs in the caption
  • link all the teams in the second paragraph as you have done with Pakistan in the first
  • with their largest victory being by an innings and 248 runs against New Zealand in 1958 link New Zealand cricket team in England in 1958
Also, if you get a chance could you please review my latest FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of centuries in women's One Day International cricket/archive1. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ianblair23: Thanks for your review; I'll definitely take a look at your FLC. Harrias talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great job Harrias, looking forward to see to rest of the series here at FLC. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the tiniest of nit-picks, I appear to need a subscription to read ref 5. Courcelles (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Harrias appears to be on a short wiki-break, I've just added the tag myself and can support this one. Sourcing looks good. Courcelles (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:42, 22 January 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/England_cricket_team_Test_results_(1946–1959)/archive1&oldid=821844639"