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

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)

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

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.
- Resolved this now. Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- I have linked this on the first use to Result (cricket)#Statement of result, which hopefully helps to explain it? Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]
- - Reworked this a little. Harrias ^talk 16:08, 21 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.
- Reworded this. Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  - Ok, you could at least link the "against Australia" to The Ashes I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tweaked a little. Harrias ^talk 16:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lord's is piped to a redirect back to itself.
- Fixed. Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Start Date" -> "Start date".
- Fixed. Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]
- Replied to both BeatlesLedTV and The Rambling Man's concerns. Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Harrias couple of follow-ups... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 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

Added. Harrias ^talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

link runs in the caption

Linked. Harrias ^talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

link all the teams in the second paragraph as you have done with Pakistan in the first

Linked all. Harrias ^talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Linked. Harrias ^talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

was in 1956–57 against South Africa, when they won by 312 runs link English cricket team in South Africa in 1956–57

Linked. Harrias ^talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Courcelles Thanks! Harrias ^talk 17:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --Pres N 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.