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 16:02, 31 October 2009 [1].

List of India women Test cricketers[edit]

Nominator(s): -SpacemanSpiff 06:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/List of India women Test cricketers/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it passes the criteria. The list provides a detailed view of women cricketers who have played at the highest international level (Test cricket) representing India. It is comprehensive and is current as of today. The list is likely to expand at the rate of about five players per two/three years. The lead provides an introduction to Test cricket and women's cricket, sufficient to provide context to a lay reader. There are two tables included, one table with important stats for all players and another detailing the captains' performance over the years. I will be happy to address comments/questions/suggestions promptly. -SpacemanSpiff 06:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surely number of 50's is notable? Aaroncrick (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was in two minds about this. Most other Test lists (men's and women's) don't carry either 100s or 50s, in this case I figured having just 100s is sufficient. If a change to include 50s is recommended, I can get it done pretty quickly, no additional referencing required, and it's easy to add.-SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the volume of scoring for women is a lot lower than for men. So a 50 for women might be quite something. I saw a total of 10 100s in 34 Tests. 0.3 tons per Test is very low, for a men's game often two per team per game, or more. A lot of ODI scores in the recent WC in Australia were about 180-220 on smaller grounds like North Sydney Oval and Bankstown Oval even though in state List-A matches, a par-score for these grounds is usually 280-310. There was a game in late-2001 at Bankstown when NSW made 390 odd and Tas made about 340. Haddin and M Waugh both made centuries for NSW. Tas made 340 even against McGrath and B Lee IIRC YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added a column for 50s. It is interesting, there are a few with multiple scores. -SpacemanSpiff 01:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand why the table split in the middle. Ease of reference or some other reason? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears easier to figure out which column is what with the additional title bar at that point - the extra bar ensures that when someone looks at any of the 71 entries, there's a title bar in view on screen. That doesn't interfere with the sorting etc, so the table is only visually split.-SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Third paragraph is unreadable. "20 out of 34 Tests", "fourth in the list but fewer Tests than all but one" and "entered the list of top-30 players" and the like.

Done Cleaned this up, let me know if there are any other problems.

"The team is selected by a panel of former cricketers who have played at least 25 games at the first-class level or above. " - how do they define first class experience for women selectors ?

Done I've linked to the First-class cricket article; explanation on the criteria is included there.

"The panel is made up of five members, the chairperson and four other members, one member from each of the five zonal divisions in domestic cricket". From the source - "Women's selection committee: Anju Jain (chairman), Poornima Rao, Mithu Mukherjee, Vrinda Bhagat, Sandhya Agarwal, Niranjan Shah ". I count six there including Shah. Are you sure that you are not talking about men's cricket in the line quoted from the article ?

Response The selection panel was initially formed as per the Cricinfo reference (ref 8), however it was (very soon) changed to the men's team model, and the Hindu reference (ref 9) I've used against that statement shows the Zonal split with Agarwal (Chairperson - Central), Gandhi (North), Rao (South), Mukherjee (East), Bhagat (West).

Before Raj, Agarwal was a record holder too. 59.92.22.173 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I made this change before reading this comment, as it was connected to the readability issue.

Thanks for the feedback/changes, let me know if there are other concerns. -SpacemanSpiff 18:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Does the flag need to be quite that big?! The infobox setting is a fixed 280px, I'll try to modify the infobox as was done with the Rugby one. "The game, for women, includes ..." reads odd to me. Perhaps something like "The women's variant of Test cricket includes..."? "However, women's cricket was late to arrive in India." not keen on this sentence at all. Just say something like "However, the governing association, Women's Cricket Association of India, was not formed until 1973, with the first Test..."? "Test match frequency for India has been sporadic" this is followed by a sentence about time between victories. So this "frequency" is really about victories? And it isn't really sporadic if they only one test match for 26 years, it's just poor form! Done. Wasn't my intention to provide excuses :) I was really trying to say that 34 matches in 34 years is pretty low. But my comparison was the men's team. On closer inspection, England have played 51 while Australia have played 42, so the comparison is valid only against England. I've removed the sentence. "This is a list of women Test cricketers who have played at least one Test match for India" Avoid bold, and perhaps something more interesting, like "Since its inception, 71 women has represented India in at least one Test match." Link cap to Cap (sport). Why not use conventional notation for wicket-keeper and captain? I would prefer to use the conventional notations. However, "" is already in use for not outs and I didn't want to repeat. "†" for wicket-keeper could be confused with "+" (balls bowled) in smaller screen sizes. If this is not a big enough problem, I will change to conventional notations. " No. of " or " No of " - actually, would prefer "Number of..."! Central "India women Test cricketers" heading is redundant above the table. Not convinced the sortings working out. Try BBM for instance. First click I get number 2 with an en-dash, second click I get number 22 with 1/0 (but 1/4 and 1/8 are sorting below 1/15, 1/17 etc). Sort Avg, first click I get 71 with an en-dash, second click I get 17 with 12.00 (but two below I get 41 with 141.00 average, way out of order), third click I get 41 with 141.00... I'll try to fix the problems. With BBM and BBI there are some problems I didn't foresee. I'm not sure what the problems with the rest are, but I'll get them fixed. Usually lists of names sort by surname using the ((sortname)) template, but is this different for Indian names? I wasn't sure. This is a unique problem because of the naming structures used in India (probably won't be an issue in a few years, but it is for this set). For Sandhya Agarwal, Agarwal is the true last name; for Venkatacher Kalpana, Venkatacher is the patronym while Kalpana is the given (first) name; for Mithali Raj, Raj is a patronym, a reason you'll see many sources referring to her as Mithali and not Raj. Given the multiple variations, I decided not to use the standard sort methodology. What does "3320+" mean? The + isn't in the key. "India women Test captains" central heading not required. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Done. All above comments without an inline response have been taken care of. I'll try to resolve the stats sorting issues and the flag size either today or tomorrow; let me know if the name sorting and caption/wk notations are still an issue. Thanks for the feedback. -SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Done* The sorting has been fixed. The infobox was removed by another editor, so the flag size issue is no longer applicable. -SpacemanSpiff 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Does the flag need to be quite that big?!
- The infobox setting is a fixed 280px, I'll try to modify the infobox as was done with the Rugby one.
"The game, for women, includes ..." reads odd to me. Perhaps something like "The women's variant of Test cricket includes..."?
"However, women's cricket was late to arrive in India." not keen on this sentence at all. Just say something like "However, the governing association, Women's Cricket Association of India, was not formed until 1973, with the first Test..."?
"Test match frequency for India has been sporadic" this is followed by a sentence about time between victories. So this "frequency" is really about victories? And it isn't really sporadic if they only one test match for 26 years, it's just poor form!
- Done. Wasn't my intention to provide excuses :) I was really trying to say that 34 matches in 34 years is pretty low. But my comparison was the men's team. On closer inspection, England have played 51 while Australia have played 42, so the comparison is valid only against England. I've removed the sentence.
"This is a list of women Test cricketers who have played at least one Test match for India" Avoid bold, and perhaps something more interesting, like "Since its inception, 71 women has represented India in at least one Test match."
Link cap to Cap (sport).
Why not use conventional notation for wicket-keeper and captain?
- I would prefer to use the conventional notations. However, "*" is already in use for not outs and I didn't want to repeat. "†" for wicket-keeper could be confused with "+" (balls bowled) in smaller screen sizes. If this is not a big enough problem, I will change to conventional notations.
" No. of " or " No of " - actually, would prefer "Number of..."!
Central "India women Test cricketers" heading is redundant above the table.
Not convinced the sortings working out. Try BBM for instance. First click I get number 2 with an en-dash, second click I get number 22 with 1/0 (but 1/4 and 1/8 are sorting below 1/15, 1/17 etc). Sort Avg, first click I get 71 with an en-dash, second click I get 17 with 12.00 (but two below I get 41 with 141.00 average, way out of order), third click I get 41 with 141.00...
- I'll try to fix the problems. With BBM and BBI there are some problems I didn't foresee. I'm not sure what the problems with the rest are, but I'll get them fixed.
Usually lists of names sort by surname using the ((sortname)) template, but is this different for Indian names? I wasn't sure.
- This is a unique problem because of the naming structures used in India (probably won't be an issue in a few years, but it is for this set). For Sandhya Agarwal, Agarwal is the true last name; for Venkatacher Kalpana, Venkatacher is the patronym while Kalpana is the given (first) name; for Mithali Raj, Raj is a patronym, a reason you'll see many sources referring to her as Mithali and not Raj. Given the multiple variations, I decided not to use the standard sort methodology.
What does "3320+" mean? The + isn't in the key.
"India women Test captains" central heading not required.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All above comments without an inline response have been taken care of.
I'll try to resolve the stats sorting issues and the flag size either today or tomorrow; let me know if the name sorting and caption/wk notations are still an issue. Thanks for the feedback. -SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done The sorting has been fixed. The infobox was removed by another editor, so the flag size issue is no longer applicable. -SpacemanSpiff 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In the key, the separating dashes should be endashes rather than hyphens.
Also in the key, link the "not out" in * - Batsman remained not out
The coloured heading to the Bowling section is way too dark, making the writing hard to read and the sort buttons invisible for some of us with non-standard colour vision (or using monochrome displays). See WP:Colours#Using colours in articles.
- Done. Sorry about that, I was trying a bit too hard to use shades of the colours of the bat/ball/field without impacting readability, but I guess it didn't work. I've switched to standard Wikimedia background colours (in use on en.wiki and commons home pages). I checked both times using the AccessColor tool, but did not get any errors. Please let me know if this continues to be a problem.
Link Balls to Delivery (cricket) rather than Cricket ball. The non-cricketing reader knows what a ball is, but they won't know that Balls refers to the number of times the bowler has bowled one.
And Stumpings would be better linked to the relevant section of the article: Stump (cricket)#Manner of dismissing a batsman cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All Done. Thanks for the feedback, let me know if there are other concerns. -SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since the infobox that was in this article was intended for the India national women's cricket team article, I have removed it from this one. No need for duplicate infoboxes, after all :) – Pee Jay 22:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~Could we have an explanation why some players may have bowled more deliveries than listed there? Maybe a small note?~~ ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I would agree that this needs a note. Also, I don't like the fact the dashes sort ahead of the best averages, i.e. if you sort up to down then down to up, you never see the best figures, just the worst ones or a dash indicating no average... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done - Added note for the inefficiency in the official recording of deliveries.
  - That is a problem with the dash in sortable tables. Apparently it was discussed at this FLC too and sorting function was removed from that list before promotion. It also causes some issues in another. In this particular list, on the third and fourth sort you get the correct order with the dashes at the bottom. An alternative would be to use a hidden sort key, but that would mean that the dash will always be the lowest or the highest. I've tried help and general sources for this, and can't find any other option. Let me know what you think. -SpacemanSpiff 19:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks good. Nice work. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"until 1973 when the Women's Cricket Association of India was formed. and the Indian women's cricket team played their first Test match in 1976, against the West Indies." Remove "and" and capitalize first "the" in the second of these two sentences.
A link to the Indian women's cricket team is only needed once. The one leading off the second paragraph is unnecessary and can be removed.
Comma after "India have played a total of 34 Tests".
"They first won a Test in in Patna...".
Comma after Sudha Shah in third paragraph. Also one needed after Mithali Raj.
The names in the table are sorting by first name. Is this the intention? Most lists sort by last name.
- This is the intention. Reasoning is detailed above in response to The Rambling Man (resolved comments section).
Reference 3 should have the page number appear as p. and not pp. This is easy enough to do; just change the pages= parameter of the cite template to page=.
References 6 and 9 should not have their publishers in italics, since neither Rediff nor Cricinfo is a printed publication.
Reference 13 gives the publisher as Cricinfo.com, whereas all other uses of the site here are given as Cricinfo. It would be best to change this for consistency. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done everything above (except sortnames bit). -SpacemanSpiff 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good work. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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