Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mikhail Youzhny career statistics/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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Mikhail Youzhny career statistics[edit]

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis. I am nominating this for featured list because I think this article and list comprehensively cover the topic. --TIAYN (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose – Upon a brief glance, I see numerous colors without matching symbols, tables without other items encouraged by WP:ACCESS (namely column and row scopes), and external links to a questionable source in the ATP Tour career earnings table (SteveGTennis.com). The list doesn't appear to meet the FL criteria at this time. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Give me an example of the colors, because every colour is explained....
What do you mean with "tables without other items encouraged by WP:ACCESS (namely column and row scopes)"
SteveGTennis is a reliable source, despite its strange name.. .Its a reason why its used in every career statistics article.. see

Why are you so vague???... --TIAYN (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll try to explain things more thoroughly this time. For each row of a table with colors in it, accessibility guidelines prescribe that there should be a matching symbol, such as a †, for each different color. List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out four batters in one inning includes symbols, to pick out one candidate from the current crop of FLCs. In the tables themselves, row and column scopes should be inserted as needed; most lists currently at FLC have them already, such as the MLB one, and if you peek at their coding you'll see how to do this. It's a pain in the butt to put the scopes in, but necessary to meet modern FL standards. As for the website, we need stronger proof of its reliability than use in other tennis articles. They haven't been to FLC yet, and projects often have lower standards for reliability than community-wide processes. Personally, I don't see why you couldn't use the ATP website for most of this information. Hopefully this helps. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all colours need to be explained with symbols, for instance, the List of Governors of Alabama (which is an FL) does not explain its colours by the use of symbols.. Secondly, baseball lists may be easier to organize then tennis on this matter.. Thirdly, I've added several templates, tables and so forth to explain the colouring, aren't they good enough??? I'll fix the scope thing. --TIAYN (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --TIAYN (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't have many lists with color explanation tables like this, even I'm not sure if they are good enough. I recommend that you ask User:RexxS to come here and give his input. He is an accessibility guru and offers very easy-to-understand advice. He'll know whether the tables are sufficient. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Lists require that the content is available not only to normal browsers but also to screen readers for visually impaired visitors. This means that we have to ensure that someone who can only hear the text read out will still receive all of the information. That means that we cannot use colour on its own to convey information because colour is not read out by a screen reader. Similarly, someone who is completely colour-blind would encounter the same problems. If you look at the List of Governors of Alabama the information about the party is given as text for each entry, so the coloured cell just repeats that information, making it quicker to see for a sighted viewer, but still allowing a visually impaired viewer to receive the information. If you look, for example, at Mikhail Youzhny career statistics #Singles: 2 (1 title, 1 runner-up), how would someone who could not see colour be able to tell that the Slovak Junior Indoor Tournament was in category G2? or that the Australian Open was category GA? (incidentally, I'm not a tennis fan, so don't understand the categories - is there any chance you could also link the terms to where someone could find out what they mean?) The same consideration needs to be applied to the other lists that have legends that are only linked by colour, because I can't see any way that a screen reader could pick up the information in the legend and apply it to the corresponding entry in the accompanying table. Giants is suggesting above that we often use a symbol such as † in the legend and table to make the connection for each category. Personally, I'd suggest that having another column for 'Category' in each of those tables, as that would avoid the problem altogether and keep the information together in a single table.

Note, though, that your use of colour doesn't cause the same problem where you use it to emphasise the ranking of the opponent, as in the Top 10 wins section, because you give the rank as text as well, so a screen reader would still get the information. Likewise for the Performance timelines where the 'Round' column contains textual information that a screen reader would get and where the colour just duplicates that information in a more convenient form for the sighted. All of that is ok, but check the Grand Slam/ATP World Tour Masters 1000/ATP World Tour 500 series/ATP World Tour 250 series/Davis Cup categorisations; nobody who can't see colour can figure out which event was in which category.

Finally, just an unrelated suggestion, but wouldn't it be easier for everyone to get the information in the table called 'key', if it looked like this:

Key
W	Won tournament
F	reached Final
SF	reached Semifinal
QF	reached Quarterfinal
#R	reached Round 4, 3, 2, 1
RR	competed at a Round Robin stage
Q#	lost in Qualification round 3, 2, 1
A	Absent from a tournament
P	Participated in a team event
Z#	played in a Davis Cup Zonal Group (with its number indication)
PO	played in a Davis Cup Play-off
SF-B	won a bronze medal at the Olympics (from 1908–1924 and 1996–present, awarded to the winner of a play-off match between losing semifinalists)
F	won a silver medal at the Olympics
S	won a silver medal at the Olympics
G	won a gold medal at the Olympics
NMS	played in a Masters Series/1000 tournament that was relegated (Not a Masters Series)
NH	tournament was Not Held in a given year

I know that's quite a lot to take in, but I'd be happy to elaborate on any of the issues if you're uncertain, or point you to other lists that make use of colour in an accessible way. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the help. --TIAYN (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new key is terrible and does not meet our guidelines. The first section (as added to the Yousney article) adds info that a 2 year old would understand... it's simply not needed. The second section is already handled by the old template. Can tweaks be made... I'm sure they can, to make sure color isn't the only criteria. But to make a giant table for each and every article is unnecessary and can take up more eye-space than the actual article. Most career stat pages are simply not FL ready and never will be since they are a collection of data with limited prose. The main articles are much better candidates. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see where it doesn't meet the guidelines? It doesn't just use colour alone, e.g. green winners also have a W. I would agree though that the key is somewhat overwhelming (and I'm not sure why we have two entries for "won a silver medal at the Olympics" i.e. F and S, nor two entries using F i.e. Final and "won a silver medal at the Olympics"....) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's my bad. We have a detailed guidelines on proper performance charts but it appears we oopsed and neglected to include that we MUST use a key for those charts. I assumed it was included in the guidelines since we use it for most articles. Our key is the template:

**Key**
W	F	SF	QF	#R	RR	Q#	P#	DNQ	A	Z#	PO	G	S	B	NMS	NTI	P	NH

(W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (P#) preliminary round; (DNQ) did not qualify; (A) absent; (Z#) Davis/Fed Cup Zonal Group (with number indication) or (PO) play-off; (G) gold, (S) silver or (B) bronze Olympic/Paralympic medal; (NMS) not a Masters tournament; (NTI) not a Tier I tournament; (P) postponed; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record.

To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated at the conclusion of a tournament or when the player's participation has ended.

.

So sorry, I assumed our proper key was right above the performance charts in the guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't care what we use.. First stating that career statistics should not meet FL criteria is a bad argument, a really bad argument, secondly, can we agree on using the Performance key template? --TIAYN (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I assumed it was a standard part of our guidelines. As for FL... What I meant was that there are some articles on wikipedia in which it is impossible to meet FL criteria. Nor should those articles be deleted as they provide vital info. I feel the career stats pages will fall into this category. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only way of it being impossible is if users don't bother to change the current layout ... It shouldn't be that hard (it's just minor changes). --TIAYN (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not being clearer, but the issue that I raised about the {{performance key}} was not related to colour. The problem I have with it is that it crams in at least 17 pieces of information and you want to keep its size down, which results in old folk like me having difficulty in reading the small text and being able to find the meaning for a given key. I understand that it makes sense to use a single template for that information as it makes maintenance much simpler across many articles, even though it means you will often include more items in the key than are actually used in the performance timeline. The choices are: (i) small and easily maintainable, but difficult to read for some; (ii) normal font size with 16 rows, which may visually overwhelm a small article; (iii) normal size with only the abbreviations that are used in the performance timeline tables, which will be a nightmare to keep updated as careers progress. I must say that in the current version of the article, I find it much easier to look up that "3R" means "reached round 3", but it was also possible for me to do that with the previous template – it's just that I found it more difficult as a consequence of my eyesight deteriorating with age.

So, in summary, the {{performance key}} template is not inaccessible, but I wanted you to know that I thought it could be improved in readability. I find the current key more legible, but I accept that you have to balance considerations of size and maintenance against that. I wouldn't oppose your choice whichever way you felt was best. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can probably increase the text size a little bit, if that works. --TIAYN (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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