Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1960–1974)/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 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

England cricket team Test results (1960–1974)

edit

England cricket team Test results (1960–1974) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 12:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two years after the last one, this is the next in the series, and follows the format established in the FLs England cricket team Test results (1877–1914), England cricket team Test results (1920–1939) and England cricket team Test results (1946–1959). 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 12:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
  • "The England cricket team represented England, Scotland and Wales in Test cricket." - the use of the past tense makes it seem like the team is no longer active. I get that this is trying to convey that it represented all three countries during this period but now doesn't, but I think you need to find a way to reword it.......
  • "the latter's boycott from international sport during the apartheid era" - this makes it sound like it was South Africa that did the boycotting, so again I think it needs re-wording, maybe to something like "due to a widespread sporting boycott of the country....." or similar
  • I think there's enough space in the lead to explain what the D'Oliveira affair was rather than making readers visit the article. All it would take is to say something like "was cancelled due to the D'Oliveira affair, a controversy over whether or not the England selectors would pick Basil D'Oliveira, a mixed-race South African player" or similar. The remainder of this sentence would probably then need to be made a separate sentence.
  • Key - "The team England was playing against" - everywhere else you treat England as plural
  • How come the result column is shaded?
    • It is the row scope. Harrias talk 11:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I struggle to get my head around scopes of all kinds, but my understanding is that the scope should be on the first column of a row...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @ChrisTheDude: Interesting. Looking around, that is indeed what is stated on Help:Table. I haven't been around here much of late; I don't know whether this is a practice that has changed in the last couple of years, or if it is something that FL types never really knew much about. I do know that there are lots of lists with cells other than the first defined as the row scope. On the other hand, when they were introduced, RexxS said "Incidentally, it is not necessary from an accessibility point of view for row headers to be in the first column, it's just that it's easier to get editors to think of the structure of the table if it is the first column." Looking back, the majority of my FLs have the row scope set in a column other than the first. If you insist, I'll change it, but I'm wary about the knock-on effect, given that it is pretty widespread to place it elsewhere. Harrias talk 13:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm certainly not insisting, as I may not even be correct. I suspect we need an accessibility expert like the aforementioned RexxS to advise..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            This may take a bit of explaining, so I hope you can bear with me. The row header should be the cell in a row that uniquely identifies that row. The point is that many screen readers have, some time, had the ability to navigate up and down columns of a table, as well as left and right along a row. Those screen readers then have the ability to read out the row header and the column header for each cell that the user alights on, before reading the cell's value.
            Let's say a screen reader is reading the table in the England cricket team Test results (1960–1974) #Summary section. The user may decide to read down the Total matches Won column. The row headers are in the first column and the column headers are in the second row. So, the user might hear "Australia, Won, 8", then (moving down) "India, Won, 7", then "New Zealand, Won 11", and so on. The point is that the column chosen to contain row headers should make sense when it's read out when navigating with a screen reader. It doesn't have to be the first column, but it seems sensible to put it close to the left edge of the table, as done in the Summary table.
            Now look at the table in the England cricket team Test results (1960–1974) #Matches section. Would it make sense if a screen reader user read down the Venue column, for example? They are likely to hear "Match drawn, Venue, Kensington Oval, Bridgetown (A)", then "Won by 256 runs, Venue, Queen's Park Oval, Port of Spain (A)", and so on.
            I'm not sure there's a best answer for that table, but I would probably have chosen the 'No (Eng.)' or 'No (Ove.)' column as row headers. Then the screen reader can announce (assuming 'No (Ove.)' contains row headers): "485, Venue, Kensington Oval, Bridgetown (A)", "488, Venue, Queen's Park Oval, Port of Spain (A)", etc. If the number is a unique identifier for the match, then the screen reader user gets the information about which row they are on for each venue announced. I suppose 'Start date' could be another candidate for the row header. If so, I'd be tempted to move it nearer the left edge of the table.
            If you use values for row headers that are duplicated many times, it gets easy for a screen reader user to get lost when navigating around the table.
            So, that's the reason we give the advice for marking up headers (!) and adding the scope to each header (=row/col). Sorry it's convoluted, but please ping me if I've not been clear enough about what you need to look at to make sure our tables are accessible. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks RexxS, you're a star, that makes a lot of sense, and will help with my table construction in the future. Clearly in this case, I need to move it to No (Eng.) to make more sense (though in reality, none are going to be that brilliant.) ChrisTheDude, thanks for highlighting this; I will change it, but it'll be a job for tomorrow! Harrias talk 22:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grounds whose names start with "The" should sort on the next word
  • In note A, lose the second comma
  • Think that's it from me - good work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, all done hopefully! Harrias talk 11:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I've moved the row scope to the first column; how's that? Harrias talk 22:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility

As I've spent a little time looking at the list, I'll add a quick accessibility review.

Accessibility review
Topic Comments MoS link
Text Size: No text falls below 85% of the base font size. MOS:FONTSIZE
Colour
  • Information: No information is supplied solely by the use of colour.
  • Contrast: All background colours are WCAG AAA compliant with the text colours.
 MOS:COLOUR
Tables
  • Caption: The 'Summary' table has no caption, but is placed immediately below the heading "Summary", so the caption is less important.
  • Structure: There are no artificial rows using line breaks; the tables have fairly simple structures that most screen readers will cope with.
  • Headers, Scopes: All tables have sensible row and column headers and all are properly scoped.
 MOS:DTAB
Images
  • Alt text: Image has sensible alt text.
  • No fixed size: The image respects users' image size preferences.
 MOS:ACCIM

There are no accessibility concerns (though I'd add the caption to the 'Summary' table, as there is one for the 'Key' table). Hope you find that useful. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A link to Draw (cricket) will be helpful.
  • Same for Run (cricket).
  • UK cricket council should be replaced by Test and County Cricket Board, and a link should be added.
  • "was their second largest defeat in Test history" -> "is their second-largest defeat in Test history"
  • There should be consistency between the Key table and the main table. Plainrowheader has been used in the latter but not in the former.
    • They are different tables with different purposes, I don't see any specific advantage in formatting them the same; what is there seems to work best, aesthetically. Harrias talk 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it might be a better idea to have a separate column indicating Home/Away, which can span across rows like the Series column. It will then be possible for one to sort by the type of ground.
    • I think you might be right on this one, as I was working through, I was pondering why I had it like I did. I will just go back through and check it wasn't in response to a request from another reviewer before making the change though. Harrias talk 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that the MA Chidambaram Stadium was called the Madras Cricket Club Ground back then, but I can't find the exact year in which it was renamed.
  • Mumbai was known as Bombay back then.
  • Kolkata was known as Calcutta.
  • Chennai was known as Madras.
  • Feroz Shah Kotla has been renamed to Arun Jaitley Stadium, so maybe a note about that. However, the ground is still called Kotla and only the stadium has been renamed. I am not completely sure how this should be handled.
  • Dacca is now known as Dhaka. A note can be added for that.
  • Gaddafi Stadium was known as Lahore Stadium back then.

Note: I may use this review to claim WikiCup points. Bharatiya29 18:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MWright96

This list appears to comply with the necessary guidelines. Only one comment from yours truly. MWright96 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 04:29, 13 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/England_cricket_team_Test_results_(1960–1974)/archive1&oldid=945442318"