Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indian Premier League seasons and results/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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC).

List of Indian Premier League seasons and results

 * Nominator(s): Lourdes  18:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list is the only article in the Indian Premier League genre of multiple featured lists that consolidates the seasons and results of all IPL seasons till date... I have tried to ensure that the article has engaging prose and lead, apart from being comprehensive and having an easy to read structure. I have only got one Featured List in the past, so am not perfect in this. Please do suggest changes for improvement to enable this to come up to FL standards. Thanks. Lourdes 18:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'm concerned this violates 3b. Most of the lead is similar to the main IPL article, and in fact, there's even more information on the seasons and results in the main article (in the "Tournament seasons and results" section) than there is in this spin-off. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assessment. Comparing the leads of the main article and the list (here's the diff of the comparison), I find that the similarity between the leads is with respect to who organizes IPL (BCCI) and who the winners have been. Do please advise on whether this seems an issue to you. With respect to your second point, the List focuses on differentiating the seasons, while the two tables in the main article you mention Indian Premier League focus on the team performances and not on season results. Do advise me on whether this seems an unresolvable issue to you. If it does, I'll withdraw this nomination as I respect your views considerably. Thanks again.  Lourdes  13:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. A quick observation before I dash off for a short while, I think this list would probably benefit from having all three tables spun off into it, and in that sense the stand-alone-ness would be much easier to defend... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely brilliant suggestion. Will work on doing this in the coming week. Lourdes  14:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - There aren't enough entries in this list to justify it being a separate page, let alone a featured list (I was told 10 entries was the minimum for a standalone list when I tried to get List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches promoted a couple of years ago). Also, I don't believe the column headers should be coloured blue like that; can we not just stick to the default table formatting? – PeeJay 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ten has never been a bright line, and if there's justification for spinning off an article from a larger one, such as that on the IPL, with appropriate additional and relevant material, it's just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, that head coach list looks pretty nifty these days, nice amount of detail in the lead sections too. It think it'd be worth nominating!  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh! Fair enough then. I might nominate that later. I've also stricken my opposition above. – PeeJay 14:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm still not a fan of the blue table headers, but it's not enough to completely oppose this nomination. However, I'm not going so far as to support the nomination just yet. – PeeJay 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * first of all thanks for striking the oppose. Give me around a week to spruce this up with the brilliant suggestions given by The Rambling Man. Will ping you then and hope you love what comes out. Ty and have a great Wednesday morn. Lourdes  17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment I've made a bold edit to change from the blue/smaller font/shaded table to one which is clean and accessible. It might not be to your taste, so feel to revert, or better still, start with that and embellish it. The other thing I'd say is that you have a number of references, all of which just say "Squads" or similar. It would be better to find a way to differentiate the titles of these. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it! Will do that! Great work on the table! Big thanks. Lourdes  02:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Update – I have completed the work on the references titled "squads". They are all differentiated by placing the correct year/season in the title of the references as well as the term "IPL" in front. Hope that makes sense. Lourdes  03:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * hi again, here's the current update – I have shifted both the tables from the other articles to this spinoff list and have nuked the color background, as well as given appropriate keys and section headings. Tell me if this looks how you suggested it to be., as promised, a ping to you. Do check it out and tell me how it looks. Thanks. Lourdes  05:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, a friendly ping to . Wanted your help – if you have time, can you please give a quick look to the logo file used in this article and confirm whether I've used the right non-free-logo use rationale? Thanks so much. Lourdes  12:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You certainly need to correct the name in the article fair use justification so it reflects exactly the name of the article(s) in which it's used. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done :) Thanks. Lourdes  13:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you and also thanks for dropping by Good to interact with you again. Lourdes  02:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns addressed (and apologies in the delay getting back to you, I must have missed the ping. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you so much . The support from you is so lovely. Lourdes  14:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support (on hold; just one concern above that has not yet been addressed). Though not familiar with this particular list, I do know much about cricket. It is a great list IMO. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the additional note. I've done that too. All tables, including keys, have the necessary consistency. Thanks. Lourdes  18:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Back to endorsing its promotion. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Lourdes  03:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – My few issues have been resolved and this looks to meet FL standards. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thanks. Lourdes  02:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Other than those referencing issues, this looks a very good article, well written and well researched. Harrias talk 13:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . It'll take me a couple of days to get through this. I've learnt quite some bit from this nomination. I hope in my next FL nomination, most of the standard issues would have already been dealt with by me before nominating (for example, reference structure, table formats etc). Once more, thanks for taking the time to review the references. Lourdes  05:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * hello once more. I have finished all the reference updates. Here're the . Thanks. Lourdes  08:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, with that tidied up, this is a great piece of work, nicely done. Harrias  talk 09:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Harrias. Appreciate that. Lourdes  11:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


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