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 User:Hahc21 10:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC).

Mikhail Youzhny career statistics

 * Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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)


 * 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, 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:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! W ! F ! SF ! QF ! #R ! RR ! Q# ! A ! P ! Z# ! PO ! SF-B ! F ! S ! G ! NMS ! NH
 * + Key
 * Won tournament
 * reached Final
 * reached Semifinal
 * reached Quarterfinal
 * reached Round 4, 3, 2, 1
 * competed at a Round Robin stage
 * lost in Qualification round 3, 2, 1
 * Absent from a tournament
 * Participated in a team event
 * played in a Davis Cup Zonal Group (with its number indication)
 * played in a Davis Cup Play-off
 * 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)
 * won a silver medal at the Olympics
 * won a silver medal at the Olympics
 * won a gold medal at the Olympics
 * played in a Masters Series/1000 tournament that was relegated (Not a Masters Series)
 * 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)
 * Done. Thanks for the help. --TIAYN (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:.


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, 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)
 * We can probably increase the text size a little bit, if that works. --TIAYN (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.