Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of centuries in women's Test cricket/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 18:18, 7 October 2011 [1].

List of centuries in women's Test cricket[edit]

List of centuries in women's Test cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —SpacemanSpiff 10:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The structure used is similar to our other FLs in the topic areas of women's cricket and century lists. —SpacemanSpiff 10:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some anticipatory responses from the nominator:

  • Statistics/scorecard keeping has been lax for women's cricket and therefore quite a few entries would have everything but the runs scored and innings columns as unrecorded. Also, we use two major sources across all cricket lists -- Cricinfo and CricketArchive, in this list I've used Cricinfo as the base source and CricketArchive as an additional source if they have better scorecards for games that Cricinfo does not have them.
  • The lede (the first paragraph at least) delves into more "general information" than is typical for such lists where the lede mostly summarises the information. Given the backstory of women's cricket, I believe the historical context adds value to interpreting the list and is better positioned as a part of the lede instead of a link to another article.
  • Why are there three title bars in the list? -- It's a long list and without a title bar in view "minutes" could be taken for "balls faced" and so on. The additional title bars don't affect sorting and are fixed position at start, 50th entry and end.
  • What about the three redlinks? I've tried to create articles for most entries on the list, these are three that would meet our cricket stadiums notability criteria and merit an article, but I haven't been able to find sufficient online sources to create a stub.
  • Other century lists include "fastest century" etc, why aren't those mentioned here? -- Poor recordkeeping (or absence of a scorer when these matches took place!)

cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unnecessary in the lead to mention that (men's) Tests normally are scheduled for five days, when it then goes on to say that women's Tests last four days. It may confuse, and isn't really relevant. JH (talk page) 13:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember who it was now, but it was suggested to me that I should distinguish between the two. But I can cut short the first sentence to something along the lines of what's at List of India women Test cricketers. Would that work? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Modified. —SpacemanSpiff 08:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - nice, I had this on a wish list of mine some time ago, so it's good to see it existing, moreover it's great to see it pushing for FL.
  • I tend to think the opening to the lead is a little confusing. You talk about five days before going on to describe women's Test cricket as having four innings (same as men's) batting twice (same as men's) with eleven players in each side (same as men's) but then you unveil the big show, that it's done in four days rather than five. Perhaps generalise Test cricket where it's general and then just note that womens' Test cricket is conducted in a format that's one day shorter?
    • Modified now. I didn't touch on the 4-5 discrepancy, but kept the general details together and said that the women's version is played over four days.—SpacemanSpiff
  • "a touring England and Australia in" do you mean "England who were touring Australia"?
    • Modified, yes that was the intent, I've rephrased it to show that England were touring.—SpacemanSpiff
  • "As of January 2011" was that the last time a women's Test took place?
  • "the most number of matches" remove "number of"
  • "The first century in women's Test cricket was scored in 1934 ..." not according to your list.
  • "stood until it was broken (by one run) by Sandhya Agarwal of India in 1986" perhaps " which stood until Sandhya Agarwal of India surpassed it by a single run in 1986"?
  • "scored five hundreds" centuries.
    • Done, but left the follow on phrase as "hundreds". —SpacemanSpiff
  • "Kirsty Flavell of New Zealand " just "Flavell" since you've already introduced her.
  • " the most number of centuries." remove "number of"
  • Caption - "2nd Women's Test match.." -> "Second women's Test match...."
  • Tables need row and col scopes per MOS:DTT.
    • Done. I'm guessing this is something new? I was struggling to find the right way to add the scope ="row" bit in the middle of a row, even the MOS:DTT page doesn't use this on the follow on tables! —SpacemanSpiff
  • Key seems to have odd complete/incomplete sentences and full stops...
  • If no Mins are available, perhaps they should sort as 0 rather than something unknown.
    • Done, I've put unrecorded stats as below 0 (-1 for sorting purposes). —SpacemanSpiff
  • Same with all other cols with en-dashes.
  • 6's col doesn't sort at all properly for me.
    • Fixed, I apparently introduced this error recently. —SpacemanSpiff
  • "Seneviratna" has a strike rate of "3" - really?
  • What does No. mean in the second table?
    • I've listed the teams in order of debut Test (in case of conflict, hosts first as that's how CA scorecards read). I've explained this in the third para of the lede. Do you think a note would be a needed? I could add one then.—SpacemanSpiff
  • Active since.. does that mean affiliated to the ICC (or WICC or whatever) ?
    • I'll change to "First Test". Affiliation statuses and their relevance are a bit hazy (e.g. Netherlands was a founding member of the IWCA but didn't play their first Test until much later). —SpacemanSpiff
  • First No. has a full stop, next few have no full stop...
  • Ref 3 needs accessdate.
  • Title format differences for the Cricinfo refs.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all your comments and a made a couple of other minor changes. Let me know if you have other comments. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments from Harrias talk
  • In the prose you mention Snowball's score, but you don't mention Baluch's current highest score, which seems a strange omission.
    • Added now. I was in two minds about this -- should Flavell be included as the first double century and so on and finally decided to just leave the first century and the longest record in. —SpacemanSpiff
  • I don't understand why some players have references, and others don't (for example the first three, Maclagan, Snowball and Hide all have them, but then the next 13 don't.) Could you explain why this is?
    • I'd mentioned this above in the anticipatory comments, Ref [7] has all the info from Cricinfo. Where Cricinfo scorecards are incomplete I've added CricketArchive scorecards. When I first added this, there was an issue of CI having better info on some games and CA having better info on some games. I don't know if that's changed, but last I checked (a few weeks back, the CA scorecards were an improvement only where I added them). —SpacemanSpiff
  • I'd list "The Oval, London" rather than "The Oval, Kennington"; I would suspect that if someone doesn't know where The Oval is, they won't know where Kennington is!
  • Why is Old Trafford just Old Trafford, but Edgbaston is Edgbaston Cricket Ground? I'd omit Cricket Ground from Edgbaston.
  • I don't object to Cricinfo ESPN as work and publisher: but I would prefer to see ESPNcricinfo, as this is what is used throughout on the site itself, including the about us page.
    • Done. I've kept the publisher intact as that's what the infobox at ESPNcricinfo says. I missed this external change in their naming! —SpacemanSpiff

Otherwise, looks a good list to me. Harrias talk 11:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hope the above responses address your concerns. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all looks good to me now: good work on this article, I remember in late 2009 (I think?) when you asked for help turning the red links blue on this: it's taken a while to get here, but it certainly looks worthy of FL status. Harrias talk 15:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that was the time when we had quite a few women's lists promoted, hopefully, we'll get a few more going now, sadly it took me almost two years to get back to it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Don't need to capitalize "Women's" in the lead photo caption, I don't think.
  • Refs 4 and 3 are out-of-order in one cite block, though this isn't a huge deal.
  • Do we have a better possible source for the origins of women's cricket than Britannica? It's weird to see one encyclopedia sourcing another in a piece of featured content. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed first two, not so sure about the third issue you've raised. It's a good one, and one that perhaps needs global (i.e. FA/FL/etc) discussion, but certainly not something that should be constrained to this nomination. Is there a particular reason why you'd consider the Encyclopaedia Britannica as unreliable? I thought it had editorial etc, unlike Wikipedia.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you TRM for fixing the first two issues (on the [4] [3] issue, the reason I kept it that way was [4] was the primary reference). On the Britannica issue, I would have preferred to use Heyhoe-Flint, Rachael (1976). Fair play: the story of women's cricket. Angus and Robertson. ISBN 9780207956980. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) as it is supposedly the most comprehensive book on women's cricket history until the first world cup. However, I haven't been able to get my hands on a copy of it (not for lack of trying). As for the actual sentence being referred, I do have a few other references, but I felt that Britannica would be the best of the lot and therefore decided to use it. Here are a few more that could be used, if needed, I can change to any one of the following (none of them contradict the Britannica reference, in fact I haven't found anything at all that contradicts the Britannica ref, just a personal choice on what I thought would be the most reliable):
        • Guttmann, Allen (2007). Sports: The First Five Millennia. Univ of Massachusetts Press. p. 105. ISBN 9781558496101. -- The author is an expert on American Literature in historical contexts but has recently started venturing into sporting history. The book is a generic history of all sport over thousands of years, women's cricket gets about one page out of 445, and this particular work appears to be a tertiary source too.
        • Doughan, David (2006). Women, clubs and associations in Britain. Taylor & Francis. pp. 69, 70. ISBN 9780415368667. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). In this too women's cricket gets about one page in 163.
        • "WOMEN'S CRICKET HISTORY". is a WP:SPS from the disbanded Women's Cricket Association, now run by hobbyists, but the content is reliable.
      • Between the above three choices and EB, I preferred EB and this is an editorial preference. If general opinion is that one of the others could be used, then I will gladly change it (unless of course, someone can find the page number on the Heyhoe-Flint work to refer which would render this moot.) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If Britannica was used as a source in an article at FAC, someone would bring it up at some point during the nomination. It would be questionable there, so that's why I asked here. Honestly, I'd prefer the two books for whatever they can cite, although I don't think they're the best for this purpose. I'm not opposing, after all. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have a copy of Heyhoe-Flint, Rachael (1976). Fair play: the story of women's cricket. Angus and Robertson. ISBN 9780207956980. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). I'll have a look through it for you some time in the next week: if I forget, feel free to nudge me! Harrias talk 19:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • All Britannica references have now been replaced by ones from Fair Play. Harrias talk 20:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Very pleased to see that a high-quality book source was able to be used here. Everything else is in order. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you all (esp Harrias) for helping source this to the best possible reference. Sorry for the delay in response from me, had to go off-grid for a few days. —SpacemanSpiff 08:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • You need to fix the scope="row" on each list there. It currently placed there but in a wrong way so it doesn't let it format.
    • ||scope="row" should be !scope="row" and in its own line so the entire line won't be scoped aswell.
    • Don't forget to add plainrowheaders to the wikitable style if you want the names in the normal texting.
  • add |+ caption to each table per ACCESS.
  • not sure if its correct but maybe change scope="Col" to scope="col".
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed the scope="Col" issues. If I change the scope="row" to a separate line, the left alignment requirement is being ignored. If someone can help, I'd appreciate it. I couldn't figure out from MOS:DTT or many of the other current FL noms what to do in this case (the ones that have it, all have the first column as the scope element, not anything later). As for captions, given that this is primarily for readers, is there some way to make it invisible? It's quite redundant to show the section title (and an extra few words) again right above the tables. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you change class="wikitable sortable" to class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" it will be aligned to the left and remove the bold. The lines itself uses text-align=left aswell so It should fix that issue. About the caption, Even tho I agree with you on that, thier exemples and thier lead have it added. so only thing maybe is try and ask in that talk page if it needed in those cases.
          – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:34, 27 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_centuries_in_women%27s_Test_cricket/archive1&oldid=1089077719"