Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Asia Cup five-wicket hauls/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Crisco 1492 04:17, 17 January 2015 [1].

List of Asia Cup five-wicket hauls edit

List of Asia Cup five-wicket hauls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Vensatry (ping) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another fifers list based on List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls, an existing FL, and List of ICC Champions Trophy five-wicket hauls, another candidate of mine which has gained substantial support. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (ping) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • File:Lasith Malinga tossing a cricket ball at practice.jpg needs a personality rights warning at the Commons
  • This is regarded as a notable achievement, why? What does Pervez say? I would prefer a quote from Pervez instead of the broad, sweeping "this is regarded as a notable achievement".
    • The specified page no. in the book is not available for preview. FYI, the first two/three sentences in this list are taken from similar lists. It's a pattern that we follow in fifer lists. —Vensatry (ping) 19:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't make it right. "This is regarded as a notable achievement" seems too broad. Who exactly regards it as such? What does Pervez state? Seattle (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added one more ref. It's clearly said in the book that a fifer is a notable achievement in a player's career. What else you want me to add here? If you feel it's still not satisfying, suggest an alternative. —Vensatry (ping) 15:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just bought A Dictionary of Cricket, so I'll look for a quote when I receive the book, in about a week. Seattle (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Seattle: Barring this one, have the rest of your concerns been resolved? —Vensatry (ping) 20:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I received the book, and the author described the achievement as "notable". I've reworded slightly; is that OK? Seattle (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again what difference does it make? I don't think "described" is the right word. We need to provide an attribution in this case. The former was better. —Vensatry (ping) 06:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I disagree. We don't need in-text attribution for that kind of statement, as long as it has a source. See {{According to whom}}. Seattle (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your interpretation is correct. You use a subjective term (notable) that too with in quotes. If it were a fact your opinion would hold some weight. But in this case, it may not necessarily be a fact. Given that we have just one ref. to backup the claim, I feel an in-text attribution should come in place, else it's better that we revert to the original wording. —Vensatry (ping) 18:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attributed. All of my other comments have been addressed. Seattle (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lasith Malinga's overs score sorts out of place
  • The "inn" column sorts out of place
  • First reference uses a different dating system than the other references.
  • No fifers were taken in the two subsequent tournaments—1990–91 and 1993 editions. there was no subsequent tournament in 1993.
    • The 1993 edition being cancelled is explained in the footnote. —Vensatry (ping) 19:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence implies that there was one, and in it, no fifers were taken. Seattle (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mendis' 6 wickets for 13 runs against India in the final of the 2008 is the best by any bowler across the tournament. the most, not the best. "Best" is subjective, while "most" is not.
    • Most in this case would be inappropriate as bowling analysis isn't quantitative. Assuming that you're not a big fan of the game, Best is the most commonly used and apt one when we talk about this figure. See [2]. —Vensatry (ping) 19:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2000 and 2004 Asia Cups saw no bowler taking a fifer. use "take" here, past tense
  • The Sri Lankans lead the list with seven fifers, followed by Pakistanis with three and one by India. if you're using demonyms to describe the team, use "and Indians with one" to be parallel. Seattle (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Khadar Khani (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—
  • You have linked the Sri Lankans in the last sentence of the first paragraph but not Pakistanis and Indians?
  • I would merge the first two sentences of the second para, this also needs a reference.
    • Merge done. However, I don't think a ref. is must in this place as it's obviously verifiable in the table. —Vensatry (ping) 12:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two bowling performances feature...... featured?
    • Given that Wisden hasn't released another list since the 2002 one, I think feature would fit here. —Vensatry (ping) 12:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mendis' 6 wickets for 13 runs against India in the final of the 2008 is the best by any bowler across the tournament." → Mendis' 6 wickets for 13 runs against India in the final of the 2008 is the best bowling performance by any bowler in the Asia Cup's history.
    • Done but not exactly in the way you suggested. —Vensatry (ping) 12:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link five-wicket haul
    • Already linked. I assume that you are pointing out at the entry in the key. —Vensatry (ping) 12:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table heading shouts 'ICC Champions Trophy five-wicket hauls'
  • The last 'was' in the Note should be 'were', I guess.

--Khadar Khani (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • No need to link the Indian cricket team twice in the lead.
  • "The former has taken took two". Giants2008 (Talk) 03:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone has fixed both. Thanks for the review. :) —Vensatry (ping) 17:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It meets the criteria. Nice work. --Carioca (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments from Harrias talk

Firstly, sorry it's taken me so long to have a look at this. As expected, it is generally very good, just a few minor issues:

  • "Fifer" is cricket slang, and as such isn't encyclopedic language. Use the more proper "five-wicket haul" in the prose, though still mention "five–for" or "fifer" at the start.
  • "The 2000 and 2004 Asia Cups saw no bowler take a fifer." This sounds a little clunky, it there a more integrated way to say this?
  • I know we don't normally for this sort of list, but given that the matches are all at tournaments, it might be worth listing the country in the venue.

Harrias talk 08:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be worth mentioning that seven of the eleven hauls have been by Sri Lankan players, this would merge quite well into the final paragraph.
  • Support, thanks for your quick work. Nice list. Harrias talk 17:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Asia_Cup_five-wicket_hauls/archive1&oldid=1138481168"