Talk:List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Kapil Dev

Formatting errors

Some of the run/wicket columns are inversed from where they should be, and at lest one date is missing a last digit. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out! --—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Kapil dev cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kapil dev cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kapil dev cropped.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Informal review

Article looks good to me, just a few points:

• Ref2 is a dead link.
  •  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Why 15 is a special number? not 20, 25 or 30? I may like 20 or 30, let's say.
  • 15 is the figure used in the template and that's the minimum number for the bowling lists. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• "at international level", make clear whether it's Test or ODI. Or, the five-wicket haul is defined by an accumulative sum of all the formats? for clarification. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Added a FN —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• by 'the' Wisden.
  •  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Ref12 says "One of the best all-rounders of all time" not "greatest". This type of comparison is subjective, so I'd suggest to not use it in this sense.
  •  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Link "India's tour" with Indian cricket team in England in 1979.
  •  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Facts should be presented in continuation. Article, in second para, says "Dev held the world record for the most wickets taken in Test cricket" during his retirement. And, in last para it says "he was the leading wicket taker in ODIs at the time of his retirement". So, I think both of these should be presented in a same para. Is chronological ordering is not usual for these kind of articles?
  — Bill william compton^Talk 14:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • His ODI record as the leading wicket taker was not notable as the Test one, as it was overhauled by Akram just with in two years. I'm confused so as how to represent both in the same para.—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I've had a quick look, but other than check the prose, I'm not at all familiar with how lists should work. I've copy-edited the lead only and have not touched the list part. Anything you are not happy with, please just revert me. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Given that the article is about Kapil Dev, would it not be better if the first paragraph began by talking about him, rather than cricket?
• In fact, none of the cricket FLs I checked with include a separate paragraph on five-fors; compare this to the articles on Warne or Waqar Younis. I think these offer a better opening structure.
  • I've adopted the same structure now. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Is it correct to call him "Dev"? I've always seen him referred to as "Kapil Dev".
  • I earlier used "Kapil Dev", (even I've seen media referring him as Kapil Dev)but it was the suggestion of a reviewer to use the last name alone. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    • This is a strange one. The Kapil Dev article is very inconsistent, while most sources, doing a fairly random check seem to use "Kapil" rather than "Dev". Personally, I would have thought that "Kapil Dev" was most accurate, but I am a long way from an expert! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Who named him as Indian cricketer of the century?
•  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• "making him one of the best all-rounders to have played the game": This needs in-text attribution. Who says that he was one of the best? And I suspect, given the stats cited, it may be less controversial to state "placing him statistically one of the best all-rounders to have played the game".
  • Removed the sentence. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Is it not worth mentioning that he was the first to 400 wickets? Sarastro1 (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Richard Hadlee was the first one to do so. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for copy-editing the article. It looks good to me, with the few things to be discussed:

• You have used "As of 2012" in a few places. Isn't it better to add a foot note stating "As of June 2012". —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • These mentions should really be in the text, according to MoS: see WP:DATED. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• "His first five-wicket haul came a year later against England in the first Test of India's 1979 tour of England". Is there a need to mention "India's 1979 tour of England", since it's obvious from the first part of the sentence itself. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No, but if the tour is to be mentioned at all, it should be specified which one; otherwise it could actually be an England tour of India. Best way might to be remove any mention of an actual tour, but I'll leave that up to you. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Kapil Dev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007181014/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=11%3Bfilter%3Dadvanced%3Borderby%3Dfive_wickets%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbowling%3Bwicketsmin1%3D5%3Bwicketsval1%3Dwickets to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=11%3Bfilter%3Dadvanced%3Borderby%3Dfive_wickets%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbowling%3Bwicketsmin1%3D5%3Bwicketsval1%3Dwickets

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Kapil Dev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151027022442/http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63251.html to http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63251.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)