Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1920–39)/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC).

England cricket team Test results (1920–39)

 * Nominator(s): Harrias talk 09:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Following on from England cricket team Test results (1877–1914), here is the next in the series. This list follows the same format as that one. Although that nomination is still open, it has significant support and no outstanding concerns. As always, all comments, criticisms and nattering welcome! Harrias talk 09:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think that the names of parent companies for the publishers of references are needed as their names are same. --  Frankie talk 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They were added (in the past, not this specific article) at the specific request of a reviewer at FLC. So, I guess it's probably a matter of personal opinion, as there is no specific guideline on the issue. Harrias talk 21:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it's a little bit repetitive? Have a look ESPNcricinfo. ESPN (cricinfo excluded otherwise the same) BBC News. BBC (ditto). But it's just a suggestion and that you are not obliged to do it. --  Frankie talk 22:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary, but if you add it should be consistent throughout the article (for other sources too). &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 08:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any other cases which are inconsistent? The only other source without both details is Cricket Scotland, for which it would not be appropriate. Do you have any other comments on the list? Harrias talk 09:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments Other than these quibbles, the list looks in great shape! NapHit (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "The emergence of Don Bradman as an extraordinary batsman..." Feel like this could do with a cite, especially with the use of extraordinary (even though that is true given his stats!)
 * Added another reference. Harrias talk 09:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "The England team of the era featured some of the country's best batsmen too." Not sure if "too" is necessary here, I feel the sentence works fine without it.
 * Removed as suggested. Harrias talk 09:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Their largest victory by runs alone during this period was also during an Ashes series against Australia, when they won by 675 runs in 1928–29, which is also an all-time record for any team." I would move 1928–29 to before "Ashes series" and have the link there instead, think it would be clearer what the link refers to and would make the sentence flow a bit better.
 * Reworked as suggested. Harrias talk 09:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe for the key, use a number that is actually in the list, as 123 isn't. A bit pedantic I know, but it might confuse a reader or two.
 * Changed the number. Harrias</b> talk 09:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Could possibly make the summary table sortable?
 * I'm not sure, due to the nature of the table as an overview. On the other hand, it is rarely a problem adding functionality! <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 09:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume there was meant to be more on the final point? "Could possibly make the summary table" ? <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 12:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops! I could have sworn I finished that sentence! Oh well, should be clearer now! NapHit (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments! <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 09:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to support now my concerns have been dealt with. NapHit (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hate to do this, but this nomination has been up for 2 months and hasn't gotten a lot of supports. I'm going to have to close the nomination; feel free to renominate, and remember that the easiest way to get people to review your nomination is to review several other nominations first. -- Pres N  01:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


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