Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ashes series/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 promoted by The Rambling Man 18:37, 24 April 2011 [1].

List of Ashes series

Featured list removal candidates/List of Ashes series/archive1

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think I have improved the article since its demotion, and have conducted a peer review and resolved most of the comments brought up there. Harrias ^talk 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Question

- What about alt text is it not required? Just curious.
  - It isn't currently a requirement, though I do generally prefer to include it, I find it quite difficult sometimes: I'll see what I can do. Harrias ^talk 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- You might want to give a friendly alert to User:Moondyne about the nomination, since they have the most edits here.
  - Yeah, poked them for the PR, will draw their attention to this in due course too. Harrias ^talk 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion
- First sentence last paragraph. Ex. The Australian's have won 123 of the Ashes Tests compared with England's 100, which 87 of the 310 Tests was played to a drawn result.
  - I don't really know what you mean here. If you are suggesting that as an alternative to what I've got: I prefer what is already there, personally. Harrias ^talk 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to give you a pat on the back and congratulate you on bringing this back thru the peer review process out the the demotion catagory, good job Harrias. I hope with nomination goes well for you!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It has been brought up to meet standards.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments had a bit of a say at the peer review, let's see what I missed the first time round (oh, and good work Harrias on getting this back up and running!)

Would prefer to see some alt text, albeit minimal, and more than just "The Ashes urn", maybe explain in the caption the context, i.e. that it stays at the MCC museum no matter what...

I've expanded the first caption, and added references to all the other captions too. Also added some alt text for the urn image, haven't got to the others yet: the urn one is pretty bad! Harrias ^talk 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"consisting of anything between one and six " anything would seem redundant here.

Removed.

Maybe put Ivo Bligh into context for non-expert, non-UK readers.

In what manner do you mean? I linked "The Honourable" to Earl of Darnley# Earls of Darnley (1725).

A mix of single quotes (e.g. 'the Ashes') and double quotes (e.g. "the Invincibles") - what's the rationale?

All double now.

Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for row and col "scope" parameters for screen-readers.

Added col scopes, but not row ones at the moment: not sure if they are appropriate, and if so presumably they should be placed on the years? This isn't a very well explained 'tutorial' and the tables within it aren't even particularly consistent in their usage. If someone can tell me where best to put it, I'll put it there.

Not sure if the blue you chose for the table was supposed to be the same as that in the timeline? Looks quite different to me.. Same (but not as different) for the yellow...

Not really, I chose the colour I wanted in the tables, and was going to change it in the timeline, but for the fact I always suspected it would get cut!

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"they entered the series with open hostility hitherto unseen in the game" probably worth trying to explain what you mean here.

I removed it, as it seemed to get too wordy to explain it: feel free to add something back if you can work out a shortish way to include it! Harrias ^talk 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always, for your comments: I've addressed most of those from TRM, although as I'm away from home at the moment, I haven't done anything that requires too much effort. I'll have a proper look back next week. Harrias ^talk 22:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline fails ACCESS as it uses colour alone to convey information.

As stated at the peer review, I'm happy to take it out, as I don't feel it adds that much: if anyone wants it to stay, I'll leave it in until the FLC is nearing closure to let them have a stab at bringing it inline with ACCESS.

Removed. Harrias ^talk 16:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"the Ashes originated from the solitary Test which the two nations competed in 1882." Is this meant to be "completed"? If not, there needs to be a second "in" there.

Presumably making the sentence state ".. solitary Test in which .."?

I see how that could be troublesome. How about changing "competed" to "contested"? That seems to get the same message across in a grammatically better way. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to work well: changed. Harrias ^talk 06:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very minor, but at the start of the third paragraph "only" and "lost" would be better served in the opposite order they're in now.~~

Switched.

~~Redundancy here: "England won the series, but the series...".~~

Changed to "England won the series, but the tactic prompted changes .."

~~"England have once retained the Ashes after a drawn series." Should "once" be after Ashes, or at the end of the sentence?~~

Moved to end of sentence.

In both of the main tables, the winner is denoted in color without a matching symbol. This is a violation of WP:ACCESS. Make sure that you add what the symbols and colors denote to the key when you go to fix this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I initially thought that too, but then I realised that the words "England" and "Australia" given would make any symbols redundant, and therefore already complaint with WP:ACCESS.Harrias ^talk 05:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Australia have won more Ashes Tests than England, winning 123 of the 310 matches - I think it's best to include how many England won as well, because at first glance it would seem like they won the rest of the matches (particularly since there is no mention of the number of draws).
...the Australians, buoyed by the batting of Bradman, regained and then held the Ashes for six series, spanning nineteen years - Perhaps mention that Australia regained the Ashes the very next series or a later one? Also, the "buoyed by the batting of Bradman" part is not backed by the ref.

122.255.43.250 (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have addressed both comments now, how is that? Harrias ^talk 16:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. 122.255.43.250 (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"England developed a tactic of bowling quickly at the body of the batsmen" - If the field placing is not mentioned, it will give the reader a wrong impression

Added.Harrias ^talk 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are few series where Ashes was not at stake (1979/80, 1980 etc). This is excluded from the list but it would be good to tell explicitly about them. Tintin 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the PR for some discussion on this: I'm unsure how much or little would be worth adding. Would you suggest a simple sentence something along the lines of: "Since 1882, a small number of Test series have been played between the two sides that have not been allocated as Ashes series; those played in 1979–80, 1980 etc." ? Harrias ^talk 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should be okay. I wouldn't even say that it is mandatory, more of a "good to know" stuff. Tintin 08:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Don't see any problems here. Chamal ^T•C 11:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.