Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of English cricket matches to 1725/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of English cricket matches to 1725

Featured list candidates/List of English cricket matches to 1725/archive1

Nominator(s): Jack | ^{talk page} 20:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive and widely sourced list of the earliest known matches in cricket, which is the world's second most popular spectator sport. As cricket is the oldest known professional team sport, these matches are highly significant in general sporting history too. I am rarely using the site these days but a friend has agreed to "watch" this nomination and I can quickly return anytime to answer your questions. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm interested in this from the standpoint of early sporting history. As you have (perhaps deliberately and probably wisely) avoided online sources, it's not possible for me to check the references but the information seems to be in compliance with that in the "parent article" History of cricket to 1725, which is long-time GA-class. I've no doubts about the reliability of your sources, I should say. I like the layout and the additional information in each "notes" module, and think the additional sub-lists of known practitioners are useful summaries. The one suggestion I would make is about the specific historical individuals who became involved directly and otherwise (the Richmonds, Harley, Gage and Norfolk). There are images on the site of some of them (not Gage, though, surprisingly) and I wonder if they might be useful additions, although that could be repetition because you already have a couple in the parent article. Just a thought. Very good work overall but I don't feel qualified to "vote" at present and would prefer to see what others think, especially someone who knows about early cricket. BoJó | talk UTC 15:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to take up my own suggestion. I definitely think images enhance this work and I've added four I found in their "parent articles". I think this action disqualifies me from "voting" so I will step aside now. Good luck. BoJó | talk UTC 19:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - terrible intro terrible formatting, weird and I think incorrect title, uncited section . Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A terrible unhelpful comment which smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a terrible reason for opposing something. Please explain why the title is incorrect when the article is demonstrably a list of English cricket matches known to have been played to 1725, and what is "weird" about the title? Please explain your problem with the intro, which describes the scope of the article very well, and what specific problems do you see with the formatting? If something is uncited, tag it. Personally, I don't see any need for further citations apart from a few "nice-to-haves", perhaps, but it would help everyone if you could exert yourself to indicate where you think these should be. Please try to do better when you post comments as making glib remarks without any rationale is terrible editing. BoJó | talk UTC 15:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per Nergaal
- This is a list.. - I can read the title, I know it's a list. Redundant intro.
- A one paragraph of intro is too short and it doesn't explain anything that's worth knowing. It doesn't summarize the list whatsoever.
- Only significant matches are listed, so not all of them? Really?
- The correct title then should be "List of significant English cricket matches (1610-1725)"
- The infobox is not helpful at all.
- A wikitable should be used with col-scopes and row-scopes.
- Very, very little wikilinks in the table.
- The whole First mentions section looks like someone's sandbox. I don't see what purpose it serves.

--Cheetah (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You again. Are you and Nergaal the same person, by any chance? There is a strong similarity, underlined by your sudden appearance here with a response to my above comments. I don't think people with two userids are allowed to use both in the same discussion.

Your third "point" displays alarming ignorance and inability to read the author's words. He says, clearly and concisely, that it is a list of known cricket matches played until 1725 (that) is not necessarily exhaustive but does seek to highlight and summarise those matches that are significant (given that he has included some which would not normally be significant – i.e., the village cricket matches) in the sport's early history. If you knew anything at all about early sporting history, you would realise that the key word here is "known". I am not going to try and explain this any further because it is a waste of my time.

From what I can see of WP:CRIC's work, the infobox is a standard one and it adeqautely summarises the three forms of cricket that were being played during the period.

Once again, as with the Mongolian football list, you are wittering on about standard wikitables, etc. There isn't a standard and this presentation is fine, as was the Mongolian one.

You say there are not enough wikilinks. He has linked (probably) everything that has an article. Would you prefer to see a load of redlinks: what use are they to the reader who is the important party here, not you and your evident alter ego?

The "first mentions" idea is good as it provides the reader (remember him/her?) with a very useful summary of which counties, teams, players and venues were known (that word again) to be active up to 1725, given that so little is known about that early phase in the history of a major world sport. I'm sure anyone with any imagination would see its value.

Having said all of that, I agree that the intro is too short and should have three to the maximum four paragraphs. I have a wide knowledge of early sporting history but don't know enough about the details of early cricket to expand it myself and it would seem that the author has quit WP, so I guess it ends here. BoJó | talk UTC 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Stop being rude, BoJo. It's not my fault that you have a knowledge deficit regarding WP:MOS.
    - Go check whether Nergaal and I are the same person first before accusing.
    - Yes, it does say known cricket matches, but then it says "known cricket matches that are significant". Now, you are saying that there are some games listed that are not significant. Now, do you really think that your readers will not be confused as to what items are listed on this page? I, for one, expected to see all known matches as opposed to significant only with some that are not significant enough.
    - Infoboxes are usually very helpful, but not on this page.
    - Regarding the tables, please read MOS:DTT.
    - As for the wikilinks: the pages that need to be linked should be linked at the first occurrence. He linked them at the last occurrence.
    - The first mentions section should be formatted nicely, so the readers could actually read it.

--Cheetah (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

Okay, everyone here needs to chill out. There's no point getting angry over a list review.
No, Nergaal and Crzycheetah are not the same person just because they both are opposing your list. Snidely accusing them of such without evidence is a good way to not get your lists promoted.
Vitriol aside, there are several large problems with this list. They are not insurmountable! But they do require work.
The title is fine, though I'd prefer "through 1725" or "before 1726", but I am American.
The lead is anemic. An FL lead is supposed to generally summarize what the list is going to be about in enough detail that the reader, who is generally familiar with the idea of cricket being a sport with matches, can follow along. This does not.
Lists are not meta additions to articles; they are stand-alone things. "This is a list" and "complements History of cricket to 1725" are not appropriate, nor is the later discussion of how the format differs from other articles/lists that are not this one.
You don't need a standard wikitable if you don't care for sorting. That said, that table format is really offputting: I don't know what a standard sports template is, but something that looks more like e.g. List of Mystery Dungeon video games would be much better
This list is short enough that I'm not sure why you're restricting it to "significant" matches instead of all matches, especially without an explicit criteria for what "significant" means.
The "First Mentions" section has no references; even if the sources are used elsewhere in the list, they need to be explicitly cited here.
Okay, so there's only a couple dozen matches that we know about (or were "significant") prior to 1726, but we know there were also several dozen standing teams at some point in the 100+ years? But not the points they existed at, even vaguely, for most of them. This section is missing a ton of details the reader would expect, and doesn't attempt to explain why they're not there either.

--Pres N 23:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This FLC is now approaching 2 months old, with multiple opposes and no comments from the nom in almost 2 weeks. I'm going to have to go ahead an close it; if the problems are resolved, feel free to renominate. --Pres N 01:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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.