Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1975–1989)/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, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

England cricket team Test results (1975–1989) edit

England cricket team Test results (1975–1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 20:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The next in the series, follows the format established in the previous FLs. 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 20:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing. Also, I'll probably claim Wikicup points for the review.
  • I'm checking all the links in the main table that correspond to matches (feel free to discuss or revert) ... so far, I've avoided one redirect.
  • I'm used to seeing more inline references in the main table, but if previous lists in the series passed in this format, that's good enough for me.
  • Code in the table looks fine (including {{sort}}, as needed).
  • FLC criteria:
    • 1. Prose is good to go.
    • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
    • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
    • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources (but this isn't a source review). All retrieval dates are present. The WP:UPSD tool isn't getting any hits indicating unreliable sourcing.
    • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it is not a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
    • 4. It is navigable.
    • 5. It meets style requirements. The image is fine (but this isn't an image review).
    • 6. It is stable.
  • Support - I genuinely can't see anything to pick up on. Nice one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'll add this to my WikiCup submissions.

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*"The West Indies were the most successful team in Test cricket," what's the context for this? Over the same period? Preceding that period?
  • " ESPNcricinfo;" oddly our article seems to only italicise the ESPN bit.
    • Per MOS:TITLE: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized." I think ESPNcricinfo clearly falls into this category. Harrias talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did not beat them at all." at all is redundant.
  • "of their star players" I'm not sure of the encyclopedic tone of "star players".
  • "followed by the West Indies. " ... against whom they played ... x matches?
    • I didn't include it here, as it was already mentioned in the first paragraph that they played 29 times. Do you think it is worth repeating? Harrias talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider "win by an innings" to be purist cricket jargon, any suitable link?
  • "in the 1978–79 Ashes series, when they beat Australia by 205 runs," in which Test?
  • "during their visit in 1976" given the pipe, I would add "their visit" into the link.
  • "pictured batting against Australia at Trent Bridge" could add "in 1981"?
  • "St Johns" is a dab link.
  • I'm not sure W/L is a thing?

That's all I have. It's a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your review; I have responded to each point above. Harrias talk 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* Inconsistent use of the publisher field in the Cite X templates
    • I have removed ESPN as a publisher, if that's what you were referring to? Harrias talk 14:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the individual results need to be cited?
    • No, the results are given in the table reference. Harrias talk 14:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some worries that the whole article is only derived from ESPNcricinfo. Is this normal for cricket?\
    • ESPNcricinfo is the premier online resource for cricket. The information could also be taken from Wisdens or CricketArchive, but given that they are non-free sources, it is more accessible to use ESPNcricinfo, as it is more verifiable. Harrias talk 14:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Guerillero, for letting me know, added to awating promotion. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 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_(1975–1989)/archive1&oldid=950418792"