Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Wisden Cricketers of the Year

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 15:55, 18 April 2008.

Wisden Cricketers of the Year

edit

previous FLC

After some recovery work performed by me, User:Dweller and User:Jpeeling, I feel now that this list is worthwhile of featured status. It was a previous FL which was delisted by a single comment about lack of sources in the lead. That's fixed, and besides that we now have a nicely illustrated set of tables with comprehensive references and nationalities included. I'm invoking my own carpe diem clause to get the ball rolling here at WP:FLC and will happily attend to any comments and criticisms as soon as I can. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was happy to work on this in memoriam, ALoan. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • John Wisden (1913, 29 years posthumously and 50 years after he retired from first-class cricket), : I guess you have to mention that this was to honour him in the 50th year of publication.
    • Sorry but do you have an explicit reference stating as such? I'm not in possession of the 1913 almanack. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The online edition of 1913 doesn't explicitly talk about the connection. Is this sufficient - "The jubilee issue of the Almanack was in 1913, and for that year the editor, Sydney Pardon, chose a portrait of the founder, John Wisden." (Wisden's cricketers of the year : The first century, 1989) ? . There are also indirect references like these - "John Wisden, founder of the Almanack, to whose memory the whole feature was devoted in the Jubilee issue of 1913" [1] For more specific references, we may have to poke Johnlp or Jhall1.
  • Comment Great work and looks really good. A nice, neat, easy to read layout. Some quick points:
  • "Nationality for internationals reflects the team they played for, while for non-internationals, country of birth is shown" This means I am unsure if the flag next to Bill Alley, Mark Waugh and Ottis Gibson means they were named as Cricketers of the Year playing for their nation or only that they were born in that country.
  • Use of the new South African flag before 1993 is a little anachronistic, perhaps? The same with the Indian flag pre 1948. I'm not sure the flags add much at all to be honest. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take the point about pre-x year flags, but one of the reasons this was delisted was because it didn't contain the nationality info. So I think excluding ENG is a fair compromise. However, I'll def. look into those pre-x year flag. Funnily enough I felt that as I was adding them in. Silly old me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was delisted by a single comment about lack of sources in the lead", if you disagreed with its delisting, then you should have commented, the FLRC was open 30 days and the Cricket WikiProject was notified. There were two commenters, and nobody left any comments that it should remain listed. Besides, it was actually delisted because of a lack of sources in general (the only ref pointed to a general Cricket site), and because it was poorly formatted, not because of a "lack of sources in the lead". Surely you can agree that the current versions is WAY better than this. -- Scorpion0422 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just talking facts Scorpion! I was too busy on other lists to hit this one hard. Anyway, it seems that even now we can't satisfy everyone, looks likely that the nationality information will have to go, this list should not become a repository of every fact about each cricketer listed, it's about who won this award. I thought the current version is way better, that why a few of us have worked really hard on it. But it's gradually devolving back to the delisted version. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)
Addressed comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)
  • Has the list been copyedited? I've spotted a few places that seem to be basic grammatical/MOS errors that would likely be caught during a copyediting.
  1. "Where nationality is questionable or changed during the course of a player's career, it has been derived from teams represented during / preceding the season for which the award was made" sounds dangerously close to being OR? What is the basis for this derivation?
  2. There seem to be a lot of notes in the footnotes that would seem to be something to note in the actual article itself, and why not put the notes on those people instead of in a notes tag? Why are the first two entries sharing one cell while the rest have individual table cells?
  3. A few times there seems to have only been one winner instead of the usual five. Why?
  4. What is the reasoning behind the splits between sections? I can kind for the Wars from the lead, but why split out "after 1981"? What changed to cause those to be separate?
  5. The flags are a short way to do nationality info, however I believe the way it currently is done does not comply with WP:MOSFLAG.
  6. The general references are still way to general; just giving a link to http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/current/story/almanack does not provide a reference for anything not appearing on the front page. The second general link is the only one containing specific information easily identifiable in the list (namely the list itself). Where is the nationality information coming from? Where is everything listed in the notes coming from? You can't just say "X was born in" in the notes, as that is not a reference, only a remark. References are still needed.Collectonian (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But the original was in part criticised for lack of nationalities. Where someone didn't play international cricket doesn't mean they had no nationality. We've been as clear as can be both in this general comment and the footnotes how we derived a nationality for each individual. By doing so, I hope we avoid slipping over the OR line. --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, not quite. The original was partly criticized for not saying what teamed the played for, not necessarily their nationalities. ;) Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the sandbox below, most of the notes have been removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A few times there seems to have only been one winner instead of the usual five. Why?" Is this not explained adequately in the Lead? If it's unclear, we can clarify. --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"What is the reasoning behind the splits between sections?" To make the sections manageable but I'll happily merge the tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly arbitrary sections removed - tables merged. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really the last two sections were the most arbitrary, but the single table looks better I think. Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'd make my simple brain ache less if you pointed to the section of MOSFLAG you're referring to... Actually, on second thoughts, I'm going to bed :-) --Dweller (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an alternative which you'd find acceptable? e.g. (AUS) after the name? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the comment about the general references. What do you mean? Re the nationalities - do they constitute extraordinary claims? Do you really want each man's nationality cited? There's been a lot of winners - cricket's been around a long time and Wisden's 5 per year approach will make the thing littered with citations and probably unreadable. --Dweller (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First people want the nationalities and now they want each and every nationality cited! This list is not the place to cite their nationality. Perhaps we should revert to the version that was delisted without any nationality information. That way we'd avoid any contravention of MOSFLAG as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be difficult, but I would agree with that approach. I don't know if I would revert to the last version as this list looks great to me, but regarding nationality it is trying to do too much. This is most definitely a problem with listing cricketers as of West Indian nationality (West Indies is not a nation) All the notes about players being born here, there and everywhere is probably overkill too. I would suggest if you are going to list by nationality, only mark those who were named as a COTY as part of a touring team, although even that is probably not needed. The list does not need nationality to pass as a featured list and I would have defended the list at FLR if I had seen it on that basis. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll sandbox it and see what people think... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with a featured article/list it doesn't matter if its an "extraordinary claim." Unless it is general knowledge (sky blue, etc etc), it must be sourced. The removal of a lot of the notes has helped here as did the removal of the flags all together, however refs 10-24 are footnotes with no sources for the name. Some note need to be added to indicate how you know it was renamed.. Also, they should be moved to the year or another field and just drop the notes column all together. It just makes the table look like it has a lot of empty spaces now. Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the list stand in terms of the copyediting? Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your further comments. (a) I'll move the notes. (b) Copyedit? Can you point to anything you have specific issues with? There's not a great deal to copyedit... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes now moved and notes column removed. The source for the name is the general reference. Do you want me to reference each reference as well and remove the general one? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine I just wanted to be sure what the source was :) I'll look at the lead to see what I noticed and post some notes later today. Collectonian (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph reads awkwardly to me, but not sure how to reword it to flow better. The " should come after the . not before. I made a suggested change to the paragraph structure to get the topic sentences together and to the table header. Feel free to undo, as both are just a suggestion. :) I like the change in picture to the cover. Is there any reason given for why only one person was selected in some years? Are the Australian Cricketers of the year and the cricketers of the century included in the list? If not, maybe remove that sentence and make those two links see alsos? Collectonian (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only unaddressed issue is the need for the lead to be copy edited as some of the writing fells stilted and is not flowing well. Collectonian (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues I had have been adequately addressed and I feel it is now ready to regain its FL star. Collectonian (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Okay, to assuage concerns over citation of nationalities, depiction of such with flags, contravention of MOSFLAG etc, I've created a new sandbox version of the page here. I'd appreciate some quick comments to see if we're getting any closer. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so confident it's better (in a different way) I've made the same modifications to the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the revised version. It looks great without the flagcruft and the references are now much more appropriate and navigable. Thanks for taking the time to deal with my concerns. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 08:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Johnlp (talk · contribs)
  1. . The picture of John Wisden is less appropriate than the previous picture of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, since the Cricketers of the Year were instituted years after Wisden's death and are the choice of the editor based on deeds in the game of cricket in the previous season. Wisden himself was featured in a commemorative section in the 1913 almanack, and no Cricketers of the Year were selected that year (possibly because 1912 was such a disastrous season!). The almanack in recent years has carried a list of Cricketers of the Year: for 1913, it says "John Wisden: Personal Recollections". Before the present table was constructed, Cricketers of the Year were identified in the long list of "Births and Deaths of Cricketers" by "CY" and a year: eg "Subba Row, R. CY 1961". The John Wisden entry does not identify him with a CY note.
  2. . The word "Winners" at the head of the table seems odd in this context, since this isn't a competition that is "won" or even entered for. It's an honour in the gift of the editor of Wisden. Perhaps it should just say "Cricketers of the Year".
John, thanks for your comments. Okay, so we'll rework Mr Wisden's entry and change the image. And I've modified the winners heading accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The list now looks pretty good to me. Two points:

  • 1. I don't know if it's because I use 800x600 resolution (being short-sighted), but the pictures don't appear to the right of the table but precede it. Thus you have to scroll down a long way through the pictures before reaching the table. Would it be possiblt to intersperse the pictures between sections of the table?
  • 2. In view of the discussion above about John Wisden not actually being a true CoY, in the table the 1913 entry for him should either be removed or at least have footnote 7 attached to it.

JH (talk page) 09:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're using Firefox? It renders fine in IE7. I'm not sure what it looks like in Safari (I'll check tonight). As for the footnote, I'll add that in asap. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No, I'm using IE7. I suspect that my preferred screen width of 800 pixels means it isn't wide enough to fit the pictures in alongside the table, which has a fixed width. I've now confirmed that by using IE7's facility to set text size to "smallest", when the pictures ddo appear alongside the table. Since few people will be viewing at 800x600, I'm content for things to be left as they are. JH (talk page) 09:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh, I'm running 1600x1200x2 here but running down at 800x600 I get the same problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, John, are we done? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, yes. :) Thank you for all the work that you and Dweller have put in. JH (talk page) 10:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly tweaked the wording and the footnote about the 1913 award to better reflect the comments made here. Please feel free to criticise or fix.

I've also expunged "winner" from all the captions and I'll also do one last flick through the Lead text to ensure "winning" isn't there. This is despite my own feelings that they are indeed winners - they have won an award, a fantastic, historic honour and a supreme accolade. Best of all, they have won immortality. Not bad, huh? Anyway, I'm a consensual editor ;-) and the word's gawn. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, far be it from me to canvass your opinion, but are you now prepared to, dare I say, support this FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller insists that I find some error in the article, so shall try my best.

  • Hobbs was first recognised in 1909, but was selected a second time in 1926 to honour his breaking W. G. Grace's record of 126 first-class hundreds;[4]
The reference goes to the CI page of Hobbs. What is the reference for ? If it is to prove that Hobbs did it twice, ref.3 is sufficient. If it is to cite the reason for the second CoY, the CI Hobbs page - as far as I can find from a quick check - does not mention it. A link like http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/153105.html will serve the latter purpose better.
Exactly the same comment for Warner and ref.5
  • From 2000 to 2003 the award was made based on players' impact on cricket worldwide rather than just the preceding season in England, but the decision was reversed in 2004 with the introduction of a separate Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World award.[7]
Ref 7 talks only about the Leading cricketer of the year. If you want to cite the "2000-2003", ref.3 does that better.

Looks good. Tintin 05:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin, thanks for your careful notes. I think I've used the suggested refs accordingly, if you'd be so kind to check. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now. Tintin 07:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Wisden_Cricketers_of_the_Year&oldid=206582723"