Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Africa women Test cricketers/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 promoted by Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [1].

---

List of South Africa women Test cricketers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of South Africa women Test cricketers/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it comprehensively covers the topic. The list is unlikely to expand at a rapid rate as women's Test matches are not played that regularly. This is laid out in the same format as the current FL (List of India women Test cricketers and I have read and used the comments from that FLC when creating this list. All comments and questions are welcome, happy reviewing! Harrias (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments "Louise Goodall sent a letter to" - why? Honest answer - I don't know. As I said to SGGH when addressing his points on the talk page of the article, I could speculate, but that isn't what an encyclopaedia is for. The sources I can find don't specify. I guess I'm looking for a reason otherwise I'm not sure why this action is relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I feel the letter is relevant as it is in the reply to that letter that the formation of a South African & Rhodesian Women's Cricket Association is suggested, and more importantly, the possibility of a series between the nations. Would it help if I clarified somehow that Louise Goodall was writing on behalf of the aforementioned enthusiasts? Harrias (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Yeah I think so. As I first read it, there was no real context or link to the relevance of the "letter". Anything that makes this more relevant and useful to the reader would be a bonus. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Okay, have now slightly rephrased this, how does it read now? Harrias (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) What's an AGM? Done: Annual general meeting, have written it out in full and linked it too. "Australia and New Zealand" - perhaps link to the women's teams. Done: Linked " the same venue as the first men's Test match in the country was held in 1889,[4] and finished a draw." - reads a touch awkwardly for me. Have rephrased this slightly too, any improvement? Harrias (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Explain why the Gleneagles agreement was relevant. Done: added more information about this. Harrias (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) "They didn't play" avoid contractions. Done: changed to 'did not' "South Africa had been due to host an English team in 1968–69, but England" - way out of chronological order, so it reads strangely to me. I listed it separately at the end due to it not being an official Test series. I can move it if you feel it would read better, but personally I thought, after some fiddling, that it was better suited to the end of the paragraph. Done: have now, after some thought and other comments, moved this into chronological order. Harrias (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC) What are " half-colours"? Good point, I'll have a work at making that more understandable. Done: have now removed it altogether. Harrias (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) "have therefore played 11 Test" no need for "therefore" as far as I'm concerned. It seems to be a matter of taste. I originally didn't have it in, but then after a comment by SGGH, I added it. I'll see if anyone else makes any comments either way before changing it again if that's okay? Sure thing. No big deal either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC) "The list is arranged in the" - initially arranged because it's sortable. Done: now reads 'The list is initially arranged in the' "not dismissed" or "not out" in the key. Be consistent. Done: both now read 'not out' Comply with WP:DASH in the references. Can you be more specific? I've glanced through WP:DASH and my refs and can's see exactly what you're referring to? Ref 4 for instance. It should be a spaced en-dash rather than a hyphen... (don't blame me........!) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Done: fixed this in refs 4 and 60, don't think there are any others. Harrias (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I'll check the actual statistics later on! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for all your comments, I've addressed most of them in some way above, and a couple I'll need to put a little bit of thought into. Any further comments will be welcomed. Harrias (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -SpacemanSpiff 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Some sort of statistical summary would be good. With no one playing over seven games, career stats aren't possible, but something like x no of hundreds or five-fors should be added. Have added some stats now, for the moment just centuries and five-fors like you suggest, with so few games it's hard to add stats without them being too meaningless. Harrias (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC) A couple of sentences in the first paragraph go into detail that would probably be better off in the article about the team (e.g. the letter, reply to it) I'm still not sure about this, I think it adds good background here without being too in depth. I'll think more about it. Harrias (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Not denying the background aspect, but the letter-writing bit doesn't appear to provide any necessary background; IMO, it makes one wonder why the letter is important, without any wikilink or explanation to find out. How would this read; taking out the bit about the letter: '... and in 1951 Netta Rheinberg, on behalf of the Women's Cricket Association, suggested that a South Africa Women's Cricket Association be formed, and encouraged the possibility that a series of matches could be played between the two associations." Harrias (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I like this version, it definitely reduces the number of questions in my head! Done: changed as I suggested above. Harrias (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC) The first mention of the team is in the second paragraph, long after England, Australia NZ, WCA, IWCC and a tour are linked. SA team should probably be squeezed in earlier. "...and finished a draw." --> "...and ended in a draw." Done: changed as suggested. "...every women to have..." --> "...every woman to have..." Done: changed as suggested. "...did not play a further Test..." --> "...did not play another Test..." I disagree with this change, I think it reads better as it is. If there is strong opinion against me, I'll change it, otherwise I'm happy. A stylistic preference, doesn't matter much to me. "Only two players, ..., and only two, ..." --> "Only two players, ..., and two others, ..."? Done: changed as suggested. cheers, -SpacemanSpiff 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Similarly to above, I've addressed a number of your points and will think about the others before editing. Harrias (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Struck out/expanded above. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 23:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Responded inline. Also, you'll need to add alt text for the image. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 23:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, have added some alt text, please advise or alter if appropriate. Harrias (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments addressed. -SpacemanSpiff 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments There seems to be a problem with the BBI column's sorting. For example, 1/63 comes before 1/72, and 1/51 comes after that. Please check the sortkey. Done: was just a little error with the 1/72, now corrected. Maybe it'd be best to link to the section Wicket#Dismissing_a_batsman rather than Wicket in the key? Done: changed as siggested. Mention that the WCA was the governing body for women's cricket in England. It sounds like something like the ICC when you just say it was the parent body for women's cricket, and might be a bit confusing to the reader when you mention an International Women's Cricket Council later on. Done: actually, at the time, the WCA acted much like the MCC, effectively governing the men's game in the same way the MCC did/do for the men's game. So while it was the governing body for women's cricket in England, their influence was worldwide. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your points, hopefully I have addressed them sufficiently for you. Harrias (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Image needs alt text, no? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Done

• Support: Looks good. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "the SA&RWCA accepted an invitation from the Women's Cricket Association to join an International Women's Cricket Association along with Australia and New Zealand, and that international matches would be played between the four nations." Second part of the sentence doesn't match grammatically with the first; more specifically, "accepted the invitation" ... "and that" is the problem. A rewording is in order.
  • Done: have added agreed into the sentence, hopefully it makes more sense now.
• "The first Test involving South Africa national women's cricket team...". Add "the" after "involving".
  • Done: changed as siggested.
• What makes http://beta.ancestry24.com/articles/women-in-cricket a reliable source? I fail to see how a genealogy website would be considered reliable.
  • I have the same concern as you here, however the article itself is taken from Die Burger, a reliable daily newspaper from Cape Town. I have been trying to find an original or better source of this article, but living in England, that's the best I've been able to get unfortunately.
    • If this is from a newspaper, you could have an offline citation for the newspaper story with a page number. Instead of sourcing from a shaky website, why not cite the paper itself? There's no requirement that reliable sources have to be online, either here or in general. Is that what you mean when you can't find an original, or can you not find it on Die Burger's website? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • To clarify; the source I cite lists Die Burger at the bottom as the source of the article. However, beyond that I can't find it; Die Burger's site is in (I assume) Afrikaans, which I'm not too good at, and finding an original of a foreign paper is beyond my means.. Harrias (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Done: until I can find a better source, I have removed the part regarding the Dutch team; as they were unofficial Test matches it's not vital information. Harrias (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Is an image possible for the lead? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I wish it were! I've scoured the web for PD or free use images to put here that show South Africa played Test cricket, but the only image I can find anywhere is one I took myself of them at a Twenty20 presentation, which wouldn't be appropriate. Harrias (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Is it better than nothing? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 23:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
      • It does the job. Needs alt text, however. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Alt text appears to be there (as far as I can see) at the moment - is it sufficient for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 22:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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