Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Women's 400 metres hurdles world record progression/archive1

Women's 400 metres hurdles world record progression

Featured list candidates/Women's 400 metres hurdles world record progression/archive1

Nominator(s): Editør (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after rewriting the lead and cleaning up the table, I believe it passes the FL criteria. – Editør (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also the new 100 metres candidate. – Editør (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

The lead seems rather thin at just 104 words. Given that the article is about the progression of the record, could you add some content about some of the changes between the first and last?
Adding some images would improve the article
It looks weird to have a key containing three items which aren't used anywhere in the list, and a "status" column which is completely blank. I would suggest removing both the key and that first column. If you feel the article needs to state that all records have been ratified, write that as a sentence above the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I've added some statistics and a photo and I've removed the Status column and legend. – Editør (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude, with the new world record of 30 June 2024, I have added the letter P as standard athletics abbreviation for 'pending ratification' after the time instead of the previously removed explanation. – Editør (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The status and legend are standard elements on all of these world record progression tables. They may not be relevant to a specific article at any particular point in time, but are a general standardized feature so any initial reader of any of these will find the same information, rather than having it missing on some. It's removal here because of the above comment upsets that system. Trackinfo (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had initially left the status and legend in for consistency, but I agree with ChrisTheDude that an unused legend should be removed when this article is to become a featured list, especially when there are simpler solutions like adding a letter P for a pending ratification. – Editør (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it benefits the reader in any way whatsoever to make them scroll past a key listing various items which literally aren't used anywhere in the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MPGuy2824

Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1987 becomes !scope=row | 1987 (on its own line). The primary column needs to be unique across rows, so either the time or the date works for this table.
Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the nature of this table where each element in a row is variable, I don't think it should have row headers with scopes, and therefore I don't think they should be added. – Editør (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some cell does need to be the header cell of every row per MOS:DTAB. If you don't think that the time or date woks for this then you can add a new column with just a number with the highest number being the current record. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for suggesting an alternative. However, I cannot find in MOS:DTAB that every table is required to have row headers and I don't think this table would improve by adding them. – Editør (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured list criteria number 5c requires that lists meet WP:ACCESS standards. While that page does not take an emphatic tone, FLC's interpretation is that one of those standards is that, just as there should be column headers, there should be row headers. Row scopes on the "primary" column for each row in combination with column scopes let screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Purposely not including them is the same as saying "I don't think readers with limited vision need as good an experience when reading this article as fully-sighted readers", which isn't okay. The row headers don't have to make the table look any different (though by default it does highlight the cell), and I can help with that if you need it, but they are required to be there in the page code for promotion at FLC. --Pres N 18:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment and offering your help. It seems that you are mostly repeating what was said before: I should add row headers because of the guidelines that don't actually say row headers should be added. Row headers are semantic elements that label the row, and as I have indicated the rows in this table where all values are variable don't seem to merit these semantics, not for visually impaired readers nor for fully-sighted readers, so the statement between quotation marks doesn't seem to apply here. This table differs from the ones in for instance List of winners of the Amsterdam Marathon where the dates are fixed elements that I believe are appropriately marked as headers. What you are proposing seems to have the purpose of marking one cell in each row as the most important within that row, but I don't believe that is what a header is or should be used for. – Editør (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another indication that none of the cells should be marked as row header is that none of them will always uniquely identify a row: a time could be equalled and count as a world record or two records can be set on the same day. – Editør (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, the purpose of the headers isn't to declare one cell the most important, it's to provide context if you can't see the whole row/table at once. You pick a cell that provides the most context on its own, with whatever tradeoffs make the most sense. If you're on cell [1,2] "56.51", and you hit the down arrow, contextually you know that this is the next record set. "55.74". Down. "55.63". You cannot see the cells next to it. You don't know if it's the same person or not. Yes, you can find out by moving back and forth each time, doing more work just to read one column of the table, but fundamentally the act of reading a table via a screen reader is different than reading it visually because a) you can't take in the contextual information in parallel with the cell, you have to take it in serially and/or remember your place in the table, and b) because screen readers read out loud slower than the human eye.

If you set the first column as the row headers, then that same act of reading the series of records column becomes "Krystyna Kacperczyk (POL), 56.51" -> "Tatyana Storozheva (URS), 55.74" -> "Karin Rossley (GDR), 55.63". The listener can still check the other cells at any time if they want to know when and where (and the ref), but you're no longer forcing those listeners to do extra work to follow along any path beyond each cell in the table one-by-one in order than sighted readers have to. This does not mean that the name is more important than the date, just that it provides more context on its own. Which you presumably agree with, since you made that the first column, and not the date.

Look, I won't badger you further on this. If you really feel that 1 minute of work that has no impact on the visual output of the list is unreasonable, then don't do it. I don't own the article, and the access guidelines purposefully don't mandate that you follow them to the letter because then some people wouldn't do any of it. What I am saying is that the consensus at FLC is and has been that tables need row scopes to be accessible, and being accessible is a requirement for a list to be promoted at FLC. --Pres N 17:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not responding to most of my argumentation. To expand on the last point I made, WP:ACCESS explicitly states "it is necessary for the column headers and row headers to uniquely identify the column and row respectively", which means there are no columns in this table that qualify for row headers looking at the possible values of the cells. In Women's 80 metres hurdles world record progression you can see why this is a problem for the 1932 world records by the Americans. – Editør (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and comments from 48JCL

[1] Page needed
[2] I'm sure this supports the content, but surely there is a newer source that supports this claim? By the way, I am talking about the first use. For all the other uses, the location is not supported by the page number.
[3] Good
[4] Good
[5] Good
[6] Good
[7] Good
[8] Doesn't directly state "pending ratification" but it says ratification which is good enough.

Don't sources need archives? This can do it for you.

This list would benefit from an explanation on why Sydney McLaughlin's name changes to Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone.
Should the "time" section be sortable?
The caption "World records of the women's 400 metres hurdles" could be made screen reader only. This is my personal preference though.
McLaughlin-Levrone set five world records in this event, more than any other athlete. => McLaughlin-Levrone also set five world records in this event, more than any other athlete.
Add ! scope="row" before each date.

That's all I've got. 48 JCL 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.

I've split the reference for source [1] and added pages for both uses.
I couldn't find a newer replacement for source [2], but if you can I don't mind changing it if you think that makes the information more reliable. There already was a page number that I think covers all uses of this source.
I don't think archiving is required or necessary: "Links added by editors to the English Wikipedia mainspace are automatically saved to the Wayback Machine within about 24 hours." according to WP:PLRT. Reference lists with many archive links usually look cluttered making them harder to read.
I've added notes for two maiden names.
The Time column is already sorted, so either all but 'Ref.' should be made sortable or none. I don't think the table needs sortable columns though.
I'll leave the table caption as it is.
I think adding "also" doesn't add much and would perhaps make the sentence more ambiguous: is it the record from the previous sentence plus these five or including these five world records? Instead I've changed the phrase into "McLaughlin-Levrone has set a total of five world records in this event, more than any other athlete."
See the discussion above at #Comments by MPGuy2824.

– Editør (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Editør thank you for your response. Support 48 JCL 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, I've replaced source [2] from 2009 with a newer one from 2015. – Editør (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Trackinfo

This subject matter is kind of my specialty. While this was exciting and newsworthy almost a week ago, this discussion and (noted above) damage to the article has lost that timeliness. I would like this article to get some play, this might not be the right time. With the challenge from Femke Bol, this is going to be a featured and much discussed event at the upcoming Olympics in a few weeks. I think this would be much better timed to correspond with either the discussion in anticipation of the match up, or after the final race. I think there is a good likelihood the record will be improved once again at the Olympics, but it could also result in one of them blowing up trying to make that attempt - - that's why you run the race. We know the date of the race is August 4. I think it would be much better on that date or immediately on either side of that date. With that as a superior proposal, I will be neutral on supporting it at some random date between now and then. Trackinfo (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment that appears to be about featuring this list on Wikipedia's main page. You seem to be thinking ahead, because before that can happen, the article first needs to pass this featured list nomination. – Editør (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]