Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of England Twenty20 International cricketers/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 Dabomb87 17:44, 30 January 2010 [1].

List of England Twenty20 International cricketers

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) & Wt is this (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured list candidates/List of England Twenty20 International cricketers/archive1

Immediate disclosure: this is a

For convenience of comparison, this is the list as it looked when it was delisted.

Bencherlite^Talk 14:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• The first paragraph seems a bit blocky to me. Not exactly sure how it can be fixed, but the short sentence "England won the match by 100 runs" doesn't fit in well for me, and the subsequent explanation of T20I cricket seems a bit out of place straight after it.
  • Do you think a brief explanation of the format should be first, then describe England's entry into the format, then the individuals? Or should the format be described afterwards? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As suggested below by
      Bencherlite, possibly switch the paragraph around as you say, so describe the format first. Harrias (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Okay, have done, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Brilliant, that reads much better. I've moved (T20I) to the first instance rather than ask you to do it! Harrias (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Eoin Morgan holds the record for the highest score by an Englishman in T20I cricket," as he is Irish, he is an England cricketer, but not an English cricketer, or an Englishman, can this be reworded?
  • "... by an England player ..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Stuart Broad is the most successful English bowler in T20I," only if the definition of successful is wickets. In T20, it could be argued that economy is more important, and Maddy has a better average, which others may consider the rating of success. Could you rewrite it to either clarify, or remove 'successful'?
  • Tsk, I absolutely knew this would be picked up and I'm not sure why I dared to keep it in... how does "... has taken more wickets ..." suit you? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "who featured for the first time, against Australia in August 2009." No comma necessary.
  • Okeydokey. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list itself is, as far as I can see, perfectly fine. Well done! Harrias (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thanks for your comments and for moving those images. Safari seemed to cope heroically with them being there, and even does when you reduce the width to barely nothing. IE7, now that's a different kettle of fish altogether.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work by TRM and

• Comment wouldn't it be more simple to have the key in a table rather than the way its showed here? and wouldn't it make more sense for the Career column if Present was actually written out instead of a gap being left?
  Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm not sure how it would be more simple to have a table rather than the way its laid out. And I think the note leaving an open-ended dash is as easy to understand as "present", particularly with the note (which would be necessary in either case to validate my claim of "live" members of the squad). Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I just thought it'd be easier if it was in a table.
  Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 07:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yeah, not sure what you mean by "easier" as it's effectively tabulated but in a prosey way. I don't see the need for yet another table. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it was just a suggestion, no biggy.
  Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 13:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Haven't reviewed the list or prose itself yet, but the images are quite bunched up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, I noted this would be a possible concern in my nominating statement. So far you're the only one to have a problem with it - I'd guess you're using IE and have a horizontal resolution of less than or equal to, say, 1024? The world would be a better place if everyone used Safari.... But seriously, if it's a major concern then I'll have to remove those player images altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • An alternative would be to force them narrower using "upright", (perhaps cropping Wright's photo) but not forcing image size.
      Bencherlite^Talk 07:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Yep, I'll give that a try, but what is worrying is that JC is seeing these thumbs with different widths in his browser and that's definitely not good... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - Why not mention in the Collingwood caption that he has played the most T20's for England? Aaroncrick (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Mr Crick. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you also do so in the image caption? Aaroncrick (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done also. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• You could indicate the captains and wicket keepers in some way (or at least the captains), such as in List of South Africa women Test cricketers.
  • Done this. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• How about sorting the number of wickets taken according to total runs conceded, perhaps using a sortkey? For example, when there are several players who have taken 6 wickets each, they will be sorted from who has conceded the least amount of runs to the highest. There's something similar in this list.
  • Heh. I'll see what I can do. The sorting is pretty complex, as well you know, on these types of list. I'll try not to break it... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it looks good to me. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I think I've fixed it per your suggestion. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Yeah, perfect. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Just make sure you keep updating the article every so often. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course. Thank you for your interest, comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It looks great and I have no problems with it.
  Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 13:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]