Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Graham Gooch/archive1

• "Graham Alan Gooch" shouldn't be bolded since this isn't the parent article; instead link the main article.
  • Fair enough, linked him with his common name unbolded. The Rambling Man (talk)
• "one of 25 players in history to have scored over 100 first-class centuries" needs a source.
  • Sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "making a pair" refers to duck in the cricketing context. Not sure why you want to say "making a pair of ducks" even after linking both.
  • Just so non-cricketing experts don't get the impression he scored a pair of centuries.... subtle but important I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• You've included "No result" in the key, but I could not find that anywhere else in the article.
  • Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason for not linking the cities in the table.
  • Avoiding linking common geographical terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true for places like London, but not sure about Nottingham, Birmingham, Port of Spain, etc., —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it's horses for courses. I know Nottingham and Birmingham well, others may know Chennai and Bridgetown etc. Would you prefer I link everything every time? I'm not getting into a debate about whether London shouldn't be linked but Barbados should, for instance. What, in your mind, are the rules on this kind of linking? For me it's all or nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• His 19th century was made against Australia and the score was 120.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Pos. and Inn. entries for 13th, 14th an 18th are incorrect. I'd suggest you to thoroughly check all the entries once more.
  • Fixed, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• While sorting the table (ODI) by descending order, 115 (136) should sort before 115 (159).
  • Fixed, mind you that's something I'll need to look at in all these lists.... that strike rate is an invisible secondary sort. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why "Queen's Park Oval, Port of Spain, Trinidad" and no country names for other entries in both tables.
  • Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can still see "Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, Barbados" and "Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica". Also "Chepauk" is a locality in Chennai. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but Kingston is a name for many places, I've taken a stance to link down to the town/city, but not the country. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• His ODI scores of 117 and 112 were unbeaten.
  
  • Fixed, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Vesantry for your quick and astute comments. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why include his post-nominal letters? Shouldn't it be enough to have them in the linked main article?
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The opening paragraph should be rewritten. I'd expect to see both his name and the word centuries in the first sentence, because that's what this article is about.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Avoid the word currently. Just state when he took the position or use an as of (or similar) construct, so the article won't be wrong the day he gets fired or quits.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Row scopes should be unique. Using century number or date would probably make more sense.
  • Well, the item of interest is the century score. I'd like to hear from screen reading users to see if changing the target makes sense. Also, I'm not sure that makes any sense. If a table had a row where every item was duplicated bar one, e.g. the date (say the score was the same, the location was the same etc), why would it make sense to suddenly make the row scope of the entire list dependent on that row? And if then you had another pair of rows where a different item was the same, what would you do then? If there was no "century number" (which sometimes I think is redundant anyway) and two centuries were scored on the same date, what then? If you insist, though, I'll change the scope. This could, however, impact on just about every featured list in Wikipedia, so I guess we should go with caution. I think this suggests that all tables on Wikipedia must have a singular unique visible identifier on every line of every table.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not my intention to set any kind of precedent. I don't understand the underlying problematic and mechanics well enough to even think about attempting to do so. I'm just trying to anticipate the needs of someone browsing this particular list with a screen reader. The way I understand it, such a user might not be interested in every piece of information in the table and request a particular column to be read. To put things in context, that user might have the rowscope cells read alongside. Assuming a user wants to know where the centuries happened, he or she might, in line twelve, hear "116 Old Trafford Cricket Ground, Manchester". To the question "which century is this talking about?", "116" would be an ambiguous answer. Giving the date instead would be an unambiguous answer, at least until the table is changed to include duplicate dates. Using a unique identifier for row scopes, even if it's just something as arbitrary as a "century number", would—provided I'm understanding this right—allow the user to stop output once a particular century piques his or her interest, navigate to it (using the unique identifier), and have it read completely. In any case, don't just make changes because I "insist". If you find my line of reasoning unconvincing, we should maybe bring in someone with more expertise. Goodraise 01:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodraise 18:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I'm just not sure that we now need to introduce an arbitrary column of data (okay, so it exists in this case, but in others it may well not) which is exclusively to provide a unique entry in every row for the row scope. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't say I'm happy about the delinking of CricketArchive. Why not give our readers that little bit of help in determining the reliability of the source? (Personally, I'd like the references in general to be a little bit more inclusive, but I suppose that's just me.)
  • Well, the reason it was delinked because it was the only one linked and someone didn't like that either. Would you prefer every publisher/work to be linked? Otherwise it's a "can't please all the people all the time" situation I think... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I still think the opening paragraph reads too much like that of a person's main article. Suggestion: "During his international cricket career spanning nearly two decades, Graham Gooch, who captained Essex and England, scored 28 centuries, 20 in Test and 8 in One Day International (ODI) matches."
  • Well I think I'll agree to disagree. I think lists like this are improved in value if they provide a context to the subject matter and don't simply launch into discussing a some chap who scored things called centuries. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The rest of the prose could also use a few more tweaks. A few examples:

• "He was one of the most successful ... of his generation" – Do things like that ever change? Not unless you want to imply that he's dead.
  • Okay, fixed.
• "he is the full-time batting coach" – Awkward construct. It's supposed to mean that he serves as batting coach on a full-time basis, right?
  • Yep, in BritEng/AusEng/IndEng we say just that, as per the BBC, Cricinfo, Wisden, The Daily Telegraph, Sydney Morning Herald, Reuters etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Gooch made his Test debut in July 1975, making a pair of ducks against Australia at Edgbaston. His first Test century came five years later, when he scored 123 against the West Indies at Lord's in June 1980." – Dreadfully unengaging. How about: "Five years after his Test debut, making a pair of ducks against Australia at Edgbaston in July 1975, he scored his first Test century with 123 runs against the West Indies at Lord's in June 1980."

• Funny, once again it's horses for courses. I had complaints of sentences that were too long and now they're too short! I've tried reorganising it along the lines you've suggested... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm partial to longer sentences with less simple structure, but I find they make all those statistics easier to swallow. Three paragraphs of tiny sentences following, with only minor variations, the pattern of "Gooch did this. Gooch did that. Gooch did this. etc." make me want to fall asleep in front of my keyboard. Otherwise the list looks fine, and since none of these concerns are strictly actionable I'll go with weak support for now. Good work! Goodraise 04:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Test should be linked at 1st instant in the lede
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (100 or more in a single innings) → (100 or more runs in a single innings)
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think "run scorer" should be "run-scorer"
  • Quite possibly. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the ODI list 115 doesn't sort correctly
  • Forced sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think "not out" in the lede would be batter than *.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...not out at the end of the England innings with a score of 154*.[11] → no need of * here, link runs at 1st use. Zia Khan 12:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okeydokey, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the References you have linked CricketArchive but not ESPNcricinfo and BBC Sport.
  • Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at my talk page about Cook's list, Regards, Zia Khan 00:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• think there should be a comma after captained Essex and England in first sentence
• "Gooch is one of a fewer than" one too many words here
• I would split the refs into columns, but that is just a personal preference and not a necessity

NapHit (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done 'em all, thanks NapHit. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He was one of the most successful international batsmen of his generation..." – I'd say this needs a source.
  • I'd say that was sourced by the fact he scored the most runs in first-class cricket ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Gooch's highest Test score is 333 which he made in the first innings against India in 1990." – nonrestrictive, so needs a comma before "which".
  • If you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "also went on to score" → "scored"
  • Just removed "also" as I prefer the prose this way. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "also" isn't a necessary word and in the three instances used in this article, removing them would do no harm and the removal would result in better prose. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I agree, in some instances that would just turn the prose into a handful of factoids with little flow. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, the list looks top-notch, as we would expect from you! Harrias ^talk 17:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gone and done a rephrase. See how you find it, I agree the original wording was borderline ambiguous, hopefully the current is not so much. Let me know what you reckon. (Cheers for the review btw). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity is better, but the sentence reads a little weirdly now. How about: "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history to have been dismissed by handling the ball, and the only player to have been dismissed through this method on a score of 100 or greater,[12] when he flicked the ball away from the stumps against Australia in 1993.[13]" Actually, that might be even worse. I don't know! Harrias ^talk 21:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm going stick to my guns here. I think "through this method" is one of the most awkward constructs I've ever read, and I think my compromise is slightly less bad than that!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it didn't work, but I'm still not convinced about what is there; how about the more minor tweak: "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history, and the only player on a score of 100 or greater, to have been dismissed by handling the ball, ..." Harrias ^talk 21:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and the only player to have been dismissed by handling the ball while on a score of 100 or greater"? The Rambling Man (talk)

It still isn't reading right for me, but I can't really explain why. I would suggest either disregarding what I'm saying, or talking to someone who is better than me with prose like User:Sarastro1 about that specific sentence. I'm certainly not going to oppose promotion on the basis of it though. Harrias ^talk 22:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and the only player to have been dismissed by handling the ball during a century innings"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the construct of the sentence rather than the specific wording; the comma causes that first bit "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history" to appear like an independent, rather than dependent clause (see complex sentence). Hence the suggestion of "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history, and the only player on a score of 100 or greater, to have been dismissed by handling the ball, ..." which makes it clearer that the meaning isn't that he was one of only seven people to play Test cricket. Harrias ^talk 21:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, if removed the comma....??! Okay, try it now.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]