Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Graham Gooch/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 Giants2008 00:11, 19 January 2013.

List of international cricket centuries by Graham Gooch

 * Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I "exposed myself" to the FLC community with a list of my own, so I thought it about time that I gave everyone a chance to get their own back on me with the same nit-picky comments I usually trot out in every review...! So, here it is. I remember watching Graham Gooch as a reasonably young person, and his various odd records (like the handling the ball thing, and his cool 333 against India), not to mention his obviously positive input to the current England cricket team made me inspired to get this list up and out there. Unlike Kevin Pietersen and Alastair Cook, Gooch played in a era when there weren't dozens and dozens of Tests every year, so his record is pretty impressive. Anyway, I ramble on. Here it is, for your delight and delectation. I fully expect a rough time from the community! Thanks, as ever, for all of your time and energy. (Incidentally, if anyone can find another nice, free image of Goochie, that would be lovely!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – Meets the standards. Excellent work with the prose in particular. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  05:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot of things I would have done differently, but that's not what FLC is about. The list technically meets the criteria. I'm therefore in weak support.  Good raise  01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very kind, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No kindness intended. I prefer to oppose nominations, here I just can't find anything over which I could reasonably do it. You should take that a compliment. The weak part of my position statement is essentially a result of my disagreement with my fellow reviewers and the current state of relevant guidelines, not that of a lack of willingness or ability to adjust the list to my liking on your part. And you did say you expected a rough time, didn't you? :)  Good raise  18:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thrive on the rough times....! Thanks again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Row scopes can often be difficult to decide upon, and there's sometimes no best answer. We have to remember that the only reason we include them is to make it easier for many screen readers to operate in what JAWS calls "table mode" where the reader can navigate in any direction through the table and hear the row and column headers before each item of data in a given cell. Goodraise is quite right in his understanding that when navigating down a column (for example), you might hear something like: "116", "Venue", "Old Trafford Cricket Ground, Manchester"; then moving down one cell, "117", "Venue", "Adelaide Oval, Adelaide". So the question here is "Is that the best we can do to identify which century we are discussing?" It is quite possible that the score is the key identifier, although personally I'd prefer the date. How would "9 August 1990", "Venue", "Old Trafford Cricket Ground, Manchester"; then moving down one cell, "25 January 1991", "Venue", "Adelaide Oval, Adelaide" sound to you? This is one of those cases where there probably isn't a right answer, but I can help a bit with the problem of duplicate dates. You could use  and   if you wanted to distinguish them - that would also have the advantage of properly sorting in both directions - see User:RexxS/Test cricket centuries for how that would look and function. I'm afraid that I don't think there's a definitive answer that can be universally applied; each case needs to be examined and a judgement made on what would sound best in a screen reader for that particular table. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as always RexxS. Your sandbox example makes it clear how the (1) and (2) dates work, but your scope is still the score, not the date.  Ideally, would you place the scope in the date column instead?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for your input, RexxS. I didn't notice there were already duplicate dates in the table. Anyway, I suppose I can live with any of these three columns being used for row scopes.  Good raise  18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay Goodraise, well it's my intention to keep the scopes as they are, if you don't object too strongly. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to address in the list.  Thanks again for your comments.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if I were going to use the dates as row headers, I'd move them to the first column of the table, because there are still old versions of screen readers that ignore "scope" and simply use the first column as a row header without any regard to the markup! Sad, but true :( Anyway, the idea is that we try hard to make life easier for disadvantaged readers - but at some point we get diminishing returns. We don't want to expend massive effort seeking an elusive perfection for a single article when so many articles can be improved dramatically by the techniques that we adopt as a matter of course now. Keep up the good work! --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support – Meets the standards. Great job! Zia Khan 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First paragraph has some very long lines. Can they be broken down a bit ?
 * The link from No.20 leads to a 1993 match
 * He was not the captain when he scored the No.20. Tintin 17:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Tintin, many thanks for your eagle-eyed comments, I hope I've fixed them to your satisfaction! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Support – I'm happy with the list and the changes made to it. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  11:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support!  Harrias  talk 21:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.