Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2021

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the article probably meets all the criteria for FL. I think its comprehensive, complies with the Manual of Style and has summarised and explanatory text in the lead section to meet the inclusion criteria. Actually, I have another article nominated for FL, but I got 3 supports there, so there may be no problem in nominating this one. Thank you. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Image caption: "Shakib Al Hasan took the first five-wicket haul as well as has the best bowling figure in the CPL." => "Shakib Al Hasan took the first five-wicket haul and has the best bowling figures in the CPL."
• No reason to bold Caribbean Premier League in the first sentence, or Hero CPL further on for that matter
• "The inaugural tournament was won by the Jamaica Tallawahs which defeated" => "The inaugural tournament was won by the Jamaica Tallawahs, who defeated"
• Merge the two-sentence second "paragraph" with the one below
• "The first five-wicket haul was taken by Shakib Al Hasan of Barbados Tridents" - any reason why this team isn't linked?
• It would be best to say what his figures were before saying they were the best ever, not after
• "The most recent five-wicket haul was taken by Mohammad Nabi of St Lucia Zouks" - again, why is this team not linked?
• You refer to the St Kitts and Nevis Patriots but not the Barbados Tridents. I think all teams should have the the.
• "Sohail Tanvir's five-wicket haul for 3 runs was the most economical five-wicket haul" - can you find a way to avoid using the exact wording "five-wicket haul" twice in the same sentence?
• "Among the Caribbean," - no idea what this means
• "bowling at an economic rate of 7.50 in a Caribbean Premier League match" - well obviously in a CPL match, otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned in this article, so no need to state it
• "the youngest player to pick up a five-wicket haul in Caribbean Premier League" => "the youngest player to pick up a five-wicket haul in the Caribbean Premier League"
• Given that he was the youngest ever, it might be an idea to say how old he was........
• "While among the overseas players, Shakib Al Hasan is the youngest one to claim a five-wicket haul in this competition." => "Shakib Al Hasan is the youngest overseas player to claim a five-wicket haul in this competition."
• ....and again, say how old he was
• ....also that sentence is unsourced
• "The 2013 season and 2015 season had seen the most number" => "The 2013 season and 2015 season saw the highest number"
• "While the 2014 and 2016 seasons had the fewest five-wicket hauls where no bowler could pick up a five-wicket haul" => "No player took a five-wicket haul in the 2014 and 2016 seasons"
• "Dwayne Bravo is the only player to take five-wicket haul while captaining his side." => "Dwayne Bravo is the only player to take a five-wicket haul while captaining his side."
• ....also that sentence is unsourced
• "Bravo captained Trinidad & Tobago Red Steel in that match." - say when this was and who it was against
• The sorting on the "bowler" column in the table is wrong. It is sorting based on the flag - it should sort based on the player's surname
• In the season overview table, the column heading should be "Best bowling figures", not figure
• The "best bowler" column is not explained. Is it the bowler who took the figures in the column to the left? Or something else (eg the bowler with the most wickets)?
• Ref 26 lists no publisher or accessdate
• That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your comments. I have fixed all the problems you raised. And the last one you said, I have added a tooltip template on the "Best bowler" column through which you or anyone may understand what it actually is. And about the sorting, I have added a separate column for the players' nationality, and so now the players name sorting look correct. Hoping to get reply from you if now all is okay. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 06:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a proper look later, but at a quick glance, you also need to fix the sorting on the "best bowler" column in the final table, which is sorting based on the flag/nationality rather than the name (apologies for not mentioning this above)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some other comments

• There was discussion a while back at the cricket wiki project about these five-wicket haul lists. Leaving aide whether these are actually notable in themselves, the outcome was that we would prefer if the list of batsman were not added to each one. It bloats the table massively, especially on a mobile device or on any screen that isn't superwide. Discussions also agreed that the maidens and economy rate were irrelevant and should probably be removed. These things won't have happened on similar lists, but it doesn't make those lists any more helpful or usable. Going forward I think it's better to accept that this is a list with 8 rows in it rather than anything of any length.
• Beyond that, the nationality of the player is utterly irrelevant and I would prefer it if it were removed. The result column is of dubious relevance in my view as well; if it's kept it needs to tell use who won - not just won, but "Any Island won", for example.
• Removing all of this will make the table actually usable.
• The innings for the first match must be wrong for one of the two players - they can't have both bowled in the second innings of the match. You should probably go back and verify all of the information in the table and all of the statistics in the lead as well.
• The are written english issues in the lead. It's economy rate, not economic rate, for example. You also need to ensure that you preface "records" with "As of...". These things change and, guess what, people don't update stuff like this when they do. The whole lead is a bit of a Sea of Blue as well fwiw - and there's an argument that a lot of the stuff on things like economy rates is rather overdue in there.
• You have date formats mixed in the table - given that DMY seems to be being used elsewhere, that should probably be used here - per CRICSTYLE or whatever it's called.
• I mean, that's on a first look without really reading it tbh. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: Okay, I will try to solve all the issues. But as you said about discussion in cricket project, there are five-wicket hauls for many franchise competitions. And the consensus of most of those discussions were that article need to meet WP:NOTSTATS which says, Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. And in this article, it has explanatory text and clear summarisation of whole context, so it is not just a bunch of statistical information. And this is exactly one of the criteria for featured list. Articles not meeting inclusion criteria won't be a featured list, although I think that those articles should be deleted which has just been copied from Cricinfo without any context. But this one is not like those all. Thanks. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 13:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @FLC director and delegates: the nominator seems to have been indefinitely banned (for a few weeks now) so I suspect this one should be archived. Apologies if my comment is presumptuous in any way. Aza24 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks Aza24. Archiving. --PresN 18:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the table and the history prose considerably (modelling after Serie A Coach of the Year), and think that it now matches the community's expectations for a featured list. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

• The table is missing a caption (though the key has one): add `|+ your_caption` to the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header add `|+ {{sronly|your_caption}}` to make it only show up for screen reader software. --PresN 15:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!  Done. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source thoughts

• Why are these RSs?
  • soccerway.com
  • storiedicalcio.altervista.org
  • IlSussidiario.net
  • tuttojuve.com
  • football-italia.net
  • Football Database.eu
• juventus.com -> the name of the club

--In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerway.com has been discussed as generally reliable at WT:FOOTY. Football Italia is also widely used for English language Italian football news and have never encountered issues being raised about its reliability. juventus.com is not a secondary source, but primary sources are still permitted where necessary. The others may be a grey area, and can be removed (if redundant) or replaced. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced "storiedicalcio.altervista.org". The specific "IlSussidiario.net" article cites a magazine published by the Italian Footballers' Association. The specific "tuttojuve.com" article cites a Sports Illustrated article, and seems to have a proper staff anyway. "Football Database.eu" is not on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links, but there has been talk of it several times with no consensus. This website is currently citing the appearance and goalscoring stats in the table, which is not a must, so we can just remove it if this source really is a big issue. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero what are your thoughts on the above? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It passes my source review --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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