Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 Women's Cricket World Cup squads/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 Hahc21 10:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

2009 Women's Cricket World Cup squads[edit]

2009 Women's Cricket World Cup squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 15:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list based upon the featured list 2013 Women's Cricket World Cup squads. As always, all thoughts, comments and criticisms are welcome! Harrias talk 15:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – my only concern is those redlinks, especially in the last two tables. Zia Khan 14:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
*Comments from Crisco
Not sure if File:Holly Colvin 2.jpg is properly free or not. Web resolution, from a user with very few uploads, rings alarm bells for me. File:Haidee Tiffen.jpg seems to have something funky going on too.
I have removed the Holly Colvin image, but left the Haidee Tiffin one; the latter was uploaded by a user who uploaded many pictures from the 2009 World Cup, and all are on flickr with the appropriate license as fair as I can tell: if you could expand on your concerns, I might be better able to judge the image myself? Harrias talk 07:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious about why it can be of so high resolution but such a low file size. It looks like it was digitally blown up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is slightly odd: the rest of the photos taken from that flickr set are similar though: File:Jess Cameron.jpg and File:Charlotte Edwards.jpg for example. Maybe just the way that particularly camera compresses the images, or set to low quality on the camera at the time maybe? The EXIF data all seems to make sense. It isn't a great image, so I can take it out if you are that concerned? Harrias talk 10:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's standard across the set and the user has no previous indication of flickrwashing, no problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No concerns over redlinks, as they are not part of the criteria.
See my copyedit
New Zealand is not sorting by name properly
What's with 07, 02, etc. in the birth dates?
Nothing particularly intentional, just because it is within coding, I automatically did it that way; should be fixed now. Harrias talk 07:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check sorting. I'm seeing a lot more mistakes (birth dates in Sri Lanka, bowl in South Africa, etc.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked properly at the New Zealand list, but I think it revolves around Aimee Mason getting married to a Mr Watkins, and whether "Mc" should sort as "Mc" or "Mac", something I need to check. For the Sri Lankan and South African lists, I can't see any problem; the withdrawn player is set not to sort, so I guess it might be that which is making it appear odd? Harrias talk 07:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand list should now sort appropriately by name. South Africa, Sri Lanka and the West Indies all had a withdrawn player, which does not sort with the rest of the players, is this what is causing the apparent error? I have added a note in the key that the withdrawn players do not sort. Harrias talk 07:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)

—Vensatry (Ping me) 08:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Essentially just to stop the table from becoming too unwieldy, it is designed to be a bit of a quick reference, rather than an in-depth analysis. Harrias talk 15:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave Inns, but bowl avg. is definitely a significant parameter in these lists. The "stumpings" column hasn't got any significance here as it remains a null for most of the teams except Aus, Ind and Eng. You could merge both catches and stumpings in a single column and rename it accordingly and add a note. —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply put, I disagree. Merging catches and stumpings would mean the table wouldn't be sortable on stumpings, and while it may be a relatively minor statistic it is a very relevant one for wicket-keepers, and if the statistic is in the table, it should be sortable by. Bowling average in one-day cricket is actually, in my opinion, an unimportant statistic, economy and wickets taken give a much better summary of a bowler's performance. Harrias talk 16:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never thought that way! you're right merging them would be a bad idea. List looks very fine.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Make accessdates all the same format.
    • Maybe I'm being blind, but they all look the same format to me? Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a nice image for each nation if possible...
    • I need to find a suitable one for England, but other than that, I think we are lacking appropriate images unfortunately. Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added an image for England, and one for South Africa too. There are none of Sri Lankan or West Indian players. Harrias talk 09:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 119 players from 8... I think it's fair to make that 119 from eight, because the items aren't comparable.
  • You link "Australia" to the country but "England" to the national cricket team. This is confusing and inconsistent.
    • Maybe, but the tournament was held in the country of Australia, and the tournament was won by the cricket team England. I suppose I could just delink Australia as overlinking though? Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead doesn't need four short paras.
  • Ref 4 isn't working for me but does it say that Oz "were commonly ranked " as favourites? Do you mean "bookies favourites" when you say "commonly ranked"? Unclear...
    • It says "Australia, who have won five of the eight previous tournaments, start the favourites.." I suppose to support the "commonly" part, I should offer another source as well? Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reworded this slightly, and added another reference. Harrias talk 09:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could re-work the lead so you introduce the teams, talk about their various members, then describe the results and the resulting commentary.
    • Possibly, though I'm concerned that in doing so, I might go beyond the scope of this list, and struggle to keep things concise. Harrias talk 09:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finalists New Zealand had two representatives..." + "New Zealand's Sophie Devine was selected..." repetitive.
  • Some columns sort the en-dash as "less than zero", others don't. Be consistent.
    • They should all sort the en-dash as "worst", so generally that is less than zero, but for economy (which is better the lower it is) it should sort high. Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia seems to refer to Chamani Seneviratna as Chamani Seneviratne.
    • It does, but I thought it best to reflect the source. And to be honest, with Sri Lankan names, I think they just pick a different spelling every time. I don't mind changing it, but without doing a little research, I don't know which is more commonly used. Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may fall foul of some pointy editors claiming that you've used a single source to reference most all of this list. If at all possible, go out and find some BBC or Daily Telegraph references just to mix it up a little.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah, I can probably throw a few CricketArchive sources for stats I suppose... Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've beefed up the referencing slightly. Harrias talk 09:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'd like to see some more of those redlinks turn blue hopefully someday soon. Otherwise, quite well organized and sourced. — Cirt (talk) 00:49, 5 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/2009_Women%27s_Cricket_World_Cup_squads/archive1&oldid=1090670877"