Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Series Cricket international centuries/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 SchroCat 12:51, 6 February 2015 [1].

List of World Series Cricket international centuries edit

List of World Series Cricket international centuries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list broadly follows the format laid out in List of Cricket World Cup centuries. I have omitted a number of the statistics columns as in many of these matches full statistics were not available, so it would be make a poor comparison. As always, all thoughts welcome! Harrias talk 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Being the uncultured American I am ;), this list is mostly Greek to me. However, I'll see if I can be of any help.

  • As far as I can tell, the term "century" is neither defined nor linked to anywhere in the article.
    • Oops! Added both a link and a definition on the first usage.
  • Are "WSC Australia" and "WSC West Indies" in rows 1 and 6 meant to have "XI" at the end. If not, are they teams that were not mentioned in the lead?
    • Just an idiot mistake. Sorted.
  • In several places on the table and one place in the last paragraph of the lead, the later (larger numbered) reference comes before the one with the smallest number. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, but my personal preference is to never have this happen, since it looks a little less professional. Just my 2¢.
    • Should all be in order now.
  • Just as a note, all references appear to be proper and reliable. No dead links.

I'm really not a good judge of prose, so I'll leave that to others. This appears to be a well-composed list. Once those few points above are corrected, I'll be ready to support. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I think I've addressed all of your points. Harrias talk 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Now that my points have been addressed, I can't find anything wrong with this. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it's a good list, but I am not sure that every reader understands what "Ref" is. I suggest to use {{Abbreviations}} to clarify it and the refs. are not in proper order. Consider using proper order, such as [8][3] should be [3][8] and so on.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, I've fixed the ordering of the references I think, and added {{Abbr}} for clarification. Thanks! Harrias talk 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Good one.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 08:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
;Comments from —Vensatry (ping)

A good list overall, with some minor issues.

  • I know the whole para is covered by ref #1. But for a moment looks like it's weakly sourced.
  • Do you think it would be worth adding some redundant references? I can see what you mean, but ESPNcricinfo is a pretty strong source.
  • On the other hand, WP:REPCITE supports that there isn't need to repeat citations within multiple sentences. If you don't believe the ESPNcricinfo sources sufficiently covers the facts presented in the paragraph, let me know what facts you think should be additionally cited. Harrias talk 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could add a note stating that "International Cricket Conference" later came to be known as the "International Cricket Council"
  • Added.
  • Why is 'I' captialized in "International one-day matches"? BTW, were all the WSC one day tournaments called the "International Cup" or just a particular edition alone?
  • I just like capital letters! Removed. And no, they weren't, just a couple of the tournaments.
  • What makes HowSTAT! a reliable source?
  • I pondered this for a while. But it is offering pure statistics, rather than opinion, which makes its reliability slightly less important. WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I cross-referenced a number of the statistics with ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive, and they all check out, so I am happy with the fact-checking and accuracy. There could still be an argument against it, but realistically, such an argument could also be made against CricketArchive. Further, all of the information I reference to HowSTAT is for convenience: they are the only online site to have all the data collected together. ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive do have the same information, but I would need multiple references for each fact, this seemed a better way of doing it for verifiability. But this is only my opinion!
  • Although I agree that it's less questionable from a statistical perspective, I don't think it's very accurate. The chronological ordering of the centurions is improper from what I have observed. As for CricketArchive, the wiki article is poorly sourced. But then, I don't see a problem with it because many leading Indian newspapers like The Hindu and The Indian Express have used that as a reference. —Vensatry (ping) 18:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are referring specifically to the WSC list, there is technically no inaccuracy: if you sort by date, it does precisely that. However, within each match, it sorts by score. But I guess that isn't really the point... Harrias talk 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "CricketArchive" in refs.
  • Done.
  • A secondary sort is needed for the score column based on date.
  • I think I've sorted that.
  • Don't think 'hit' and 'struck' are encyclopaedic.

—Vensatry (ping) 13:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I guess not, sorted.

Thanks for your review, I think I had got all your points! Harrias talk 14:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not in generic terms, but looks slangy when associated with cricket at least. —Vensatry (ping) 18:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – All my concerns have been sufficiently addressed. —Vensatry (ping) 08:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – meets the criteria. --Khadar Khani (talk) 19:12, 5 February 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_World_Series_Cricket_international_centuries/archive1&oldid=1138485229"