Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1877–1914)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 21:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

England cricket team Test results (1877–1914) edit

England cricket team Test results (1877–1914) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 13:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across List of England Test matches, which was a huge list of every England Test match, but was so big that it became pretty useless. I have condensed that page into the summary that it is now, and split the results lists down by era to hopefully make them more accessible. This is the first of them. The list is loosely based upon the similar Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results, which is a FL. As always, all comments, criticisms and nattering welcome! Harrias talk 13:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Relentlessly (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:This looks good. A few comments, however:
  • "It is the joint-oldest Test playing nation, along with Australia, England's opposition in the first Test match, which took place at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in March 1877." This seems a clumsy way of phrasing it. All you need to say is "England played Australia in the first ever Test match, which took place at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in March 1877." We learn that they were the only two Test nations until 1888 later in the paragraph.
  • "the Australian team had not been considered strong enough to play on equal terms previously." This needs to be "the Australian team had not previously been considered strong enough to play on equal terms."
  • "against whom they had a 2.714 win/loss ratio" I've never seen win/loss ratio in following cricket before! I think it would be more instructive to say "against whom they won 19 matches and lost just 7".
  • "In 19 matches, England won by an innings," This would be better phrased as "England won 19 matches by an innings".
  • "they scored their lowest ever innings score in Test cricket, 45 runs." Is it still their lowest score? Clarification and a reference either way would be good.
  • Added a reference to support it being their lowest ever score. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table looks fine, but could the two footnotes not be combined into one?
Relentlessly (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Relentlessly: Thanks for your valuable input on the prose; I've updated the article now to reflect the suggested changes. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support this now. Relentlessly (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Comments - looks good
  • "The England cricket team represented England, Scotland and Wales in Test cricket." - It's worth adding until when Scotland was a part of the team.
  • Given that Scotland was part of England team throughout this period I'm not sure it's warranted. I guess I could add a footnote? Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I too, was insisting on adding a FN. —Vensatry (ping) 12:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 19 matches" - In total (until then)?
  • I'm not sure what this refers to; I think it's something I've changed slightly due to Relentlessly's comments. Could you clarify?
  • Looks like the text has changed, no issues. —Vensatry (ping) 12:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In these kinda lists, it's enough if we mention the names in alt texts.
  • I don't think it does any harm to give a slight bit more information. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does matter only when his appearance/style has got something to do with this list. Anyways, that's not a big issue. —Vensatry (ping) 12:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry (ping) 15:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Thanks for your comments, I've asked for clarification on a couple. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry:Added note about Scotland. Harrias talk 12:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why are all entries for Adelaide Oval, the same apart from the 1908 one? I think just having Adelaide Oval, as you do for the majority is fine.
  • Same for Sydney Cricket Ground, there is one rogue entry as well.

Other than that, it looks good. NapHit (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Colonies Chris was doing some tidying, and I assume they just missed those couple. Cleaned both up now. Harrias talk 14:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, happy to support now. Great work! NapHit (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "The England cricket team represented England, Scotland and Wales" odd start, I know it no longer represents Scotland, but perhaps you need to put a timeframe here, rather than just hide it in the note...
  • I avoided putting a specific time-frame because it represented all three countries throughout the period in question here, and so the time-frame is a technicality for this article. I could add it in if you insist, but I'm not convinced it's that significant for this article. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The England cricket team represented England, Scotland and Wales in Test cricket.[a] England played ..." England England England... bit clunky for me.
  • "of English players" (et seq) should that be "England players" if they could have been Welsh or Scottish?
  • Hmmm... that is an interesting point. Given that they weren't formally playing as England, I don't think it would be appropriate. I wonder if I could get away with skipping it; "Although four touring parties had visited Australia prior to 1877..." What do you think? Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only nations to compete" again, not sure about "nations" since England's team represented three nations...
  • "were all against" no need for "all".
  • "against both opponents, but were particularly strong against South Africa, against " against against against...
  • Changed the middle one to versus. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their 10 runs win" shouldn't that just be "their 10-run win"?
  • Last sentence of lead could use rewording for me, as it comes as somewhat a surprise that despite scoring their lowest Test score ever, they still won the match.
  • Any reason why "English cricket team in Australia in 1882–83" has no (result)?
  • It wasn't a series, but an add on match, so it didn't seem appropriate. I could easily add one in. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now added this, as it did seem oddly inconsistent to not have it. Harrias talk 11:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly confused by how they played South Africa in South Africa on 19 March 1892 then Australia in Adelaide five days later... I guess a note would be helpful that two "England" teams co-existed...
  • Meant to do this, but forgot. Will find a decent reference for such a note and add it in. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the summary table, Mat and W/L aren't noted in the key, and I'm not sure how useful W/L is, why not W%?
  • The source (ESPNcricinfo) uses W/L, hence I used it. I could change it, though it would be synthesis rather than sourced. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dweller

I like the idea and like much of the execution. The time period is justifiable, which is important.

  • I think the lead should be a bit chunkier and I wonder if it's worth expanding slightly on the fact that in 1877 there were only two Test nations, and that SA then joined the fold?
  • Standalone lists aren't necessarily supposed to have a great deal of text, though I don't mind adding more in if relevant. I'm unsure what expansion can be made on these lines, which is mentioned in the last sentence of the first paragraph, without adding redundancy. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comment about the Triangular Tournament, please. I wonder if the fantastic cartoon from Punch is out of copyright?
  • The Triangular Tournament is definitely worth mentioning; I'll need to dig out a couple of additional sources for it. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Dweller (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the lead as per your message on my talk page, adding a couple of references to support the information, what do you think now? Harrias talk 11:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Should "their 10-run win over Australia during the 1894–95 Ashes series was their third narrowest win by runs" read "...is their third narrowest win by runs" ? --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, altered. Harrias talk 11:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as passed. Remember that the best way to ensure that future nominations move through the pipeline as fast as possible is to review other editor's nominations! --PresN 21:29, 6 November 2015 (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_(1877–1914)/archive1&oldid=1138479600"