Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Trans-Tasman Trophy/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 via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

Trans-Tasman Trophy

 * Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I've become a little fixated with cricket lists again, and for a while now, Australian ones. I picked this one up in a reasonable state but polished it a little in an attempt to please our readers and please you, yes you, good reviewer. As usual, I offer my guaranntee that I'll fix anything that's picked up as soon as I practically can, and will work tirelessly to achieve a positive result for our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The lead is a little "bullet point" towards the end of the second paragraph; "Team X's Player Y has the most/best Z." Could it be reworked to flow a bit better?
 * I'm not sure, I tried reasonably hard to include the pertinent facts about the trophy's history in a prose-ish manner, perhaps you could suggest an example of how to improve what's already there? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not fair, turning it around on me! But seriously, I think one of the things I found odd about it was that neither the list itself, nor the history section discusses individual records that much. Generally the lead is supposed to summarise the content, but here it is listing individual records that aren't otherwise mentioned. Actually, re-reading it, it probably flows as well as such a list of records is ever going to. So from that point of view, if you want to keep the information about them in the lead, it probably is more or less as good as it can be. Harrias  talk 13:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The History section in general uses two paragraphs to talk about six series, and then another two (shorter ones) to talk about the subsequent eleven. Have they just been that much less exciting to warrant that ratio?
 * Indeed, a quick glance at the table which describes the results demonstrates that recent history has been utterly dominated by Australia, and you won't catch me harping on about that.... in all seriousness, I think the point is that it's just "more of the same" for the last few series, hence the reduced "deep dive" coverage. What do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether the previous point can partly solve this one: whether the personal records can be merged into the history section. Many of them occur during the later (more one-sided Australian) series, and so if they records are listed when they happen, it might help to make it look more balanced. Without reading in depth about the series, I would agree that otherwise, the actual series results do bear out the current balance, odd though it seemed on initial reading. Harrias  talk 13:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Quick query - why is no player of the series listed for some series? Is the information not available, or was there simply no award?  If the latter, it might be worth specifically stating it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No sources stating there were any awards for those years. Will add a note. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On that basis happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Another fine list. Well done . Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

lede
 * "...although six series between" - six Test series
 * (because A v NZ existed in first class cricket way back in the late 1800s, NZ granted Test status 1930)


 * fellow countryman - always seems a tautology to me but s'pose it's common use:)

history
 * "A man-of-the-match performance from Mark Greatbatch in which he batted for 655 minutes ensured the draw." - would read more easily with commas
 * "latter being a 3–0 whitewash" - wlink whitewash
 * "The series was drawn and, once again, Australia retained the trophy." remove once?
 * In prose there are 3 players for whom it is not clear which team they play for... David Warner, Mark Greatbatch and James Pattinson.

main and summary tables
 * might be just my browser settings but the background grey for NZ cells seems too dark. The grey used in Chappell–Hadlee Trophy has much better contrast.

refs
 * 5 ESPNcrcinfo - cric
 * 25 Wisden - Cricketers'
 * 31 link Brydon Coverdale

Sorry, I have one more comment to come, just trying to word it concisely. JennyOz (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Confusing
 * The second para of the lede talks twice of "the 2015-16 series". But makes mention of events in two separate series - NZ in Aust, Oct-Dec 2015 and Aust in NZ, Feb 2016
 * 1. "As of February 2016, Australia hold the trophy following their 2–0 victory in the 2015–16 series." - maybe could read ... in the second series played in the 2015–16 season. (or ... in the 2015-16 Australian tour of New Zealand. or  ... in the February 2016 series.)


 * 2. "New Zealand's Ross Taylor holds the record for the highest score in the trophy's history, with 290 in the second innings of the second Test of the 2015–16 series. Taylor's score surpassed the previous record set in the same Test; David Warner struck 253 in the first innings."
 * (These 2 high scores occured in the other 2015-16 series i.e., the first series, (NZ in Aust). Both in same match, the 2nd Test. Warner in Aust 1st innings then Taylor in NZ 1st innings.)
 * So needs link to the first 2015-16 series i.e., New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2015–16?

That's me done now. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure I got the easy ones, could you check the "Confusing" stuff has been resolved to your satisfaction? I'm completely easy if you wish to re-jig it to suit?  Thanks for the review, much appreciated as always. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Completely satisfied, thanks! Another polished trophy! Happily signing support. JennyOz (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


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