Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2003 Cricket World Cup statistics
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 2 support, 1 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 05:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| Current Opinion | User |
|---|---|
| Support | Miwanya |
| Support | AllynJ |
| Weak Oppose | Colin |
I ensured that the data for the 2003 reflected the format and reference templates of a current FL - 2007 Cricket World Cup statistics. self-norm for efforts in the recent past on the article. --Kalyan 09:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Miwanya 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I was bold and went through and tidied up a lot of inconsistencies and tidied up some parts of the lead, but the page certainly meets the criteria. I changed the "legend" section for the most wickets/runs sections as they looked a bit untidy as was, and instead integrated wikilinks/refs in to the table itself; hope you don't mind. Good luck! AllynJ 08:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as a follow up, I'm unsure of whether the picture is fair use or not. I understand that photos of such an event may be hard to come by, but hard to come by does not in itself mean "no free equivalent"... I'm far from an expert on WP:FAIR USE cases though, could someone else clarify? AllynJ 09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't appear to be fair use. Kalyan, you need to give the source of your image on the image page. A quick Google found this with an identical image. That photo is copyright REUTERS/Antony Njuguna, 2003-03-23. The photo breaks example #5 of the fair use guideline: "A photo from a press agency (e.g., Reuters, AP), not sufficiently well known to be recognized by a large percentage of casual readers, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves particularly newsworthy (the subject of discussion in the news, and not merely depicting an event, person or people widely discussed in the news), low-resolution versions of the photos may be "fair use" in articles mentioning the photo." If this is the case, can you please arrange for it to be deleted. Colin°Talk 13:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as a follow up, I'm unsure of whether the picture is fair use or not. I understand that photos of such an event may be hard to come by, but hard to come by does not in itself mean "no free equivalent"... I'm far from an expert on WP:FAIR USE cases though, could someone else clarify? AllynJ 09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my. I missed attaching the source and copyright of the picture. i usually add the same and somehow missed it here. I have added the same now. I think the pic qualifies for fair-use as the event is reproducible and there are no free-images available. I am also adding a copyright tag in the article page to give credit to the agency. I have seen this being done in atleast a couple of occasions though i need some time to find the same. Let me know. --Kalyan 09:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "No free equivalent" test is just one of 10 hurdles—you have to pass them all. I think example #5 (quoted above) is fairly obviously applicable. If you disagree, then the fair use page suggests some ways for you to ask for an opinion/advice. Colin°Talk 09:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great idea. I have added a {{fairusereview}} tag to the image wikipage. --Kalyan 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "No free equivalent" test is just one of 10 hurdles—you have to pass them all. I think example #5 (quoted above) is fairly obviously applicable. If you disagree, then the fair use page suggests some ways for you to ask for an opinion/advice. Colin°Talk 09:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. Sorry this comment is late. If it helps, and progress is being made, the closing editor might extend this nomination. Some of my comments are relevant to the 2007 list your is based on. I didn't comment on that list, but I believe it also needs fixing.
- The Lead contains terms more appropriate for an excited cricket commentator than an encyclopaedia ("clinical demolition", "dubious distinction", "Records tumbled", "minnows", "clashed", "consolation"). See WP:PEACOCK.
- The text contains a mix of hyphens and ndash's, inconsistent use of upper-case and some awkward parenthensis.
- The date format (dd-mm-yyyy) needs to be revised to wikilink for user perferences.
- The "Source cricinfo" links aren't a full enough citation (see WP:CITE) and the full citation should be in the references.
- I suggest you split your notes from your references (see Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal for an example).
- Note sure why the 2007 stats should be a See also.