Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium edit

List of international cricket centuries at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): A.A Prinon (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I had put a lot effort to create this article. I tried to deliver a very good article with reliable sources and significant coverage. I tried to meet the WP:GNG of this article. I gave full lists of centuries serially with reliable sources.A.A Prinon (talk)

Support: Because In my opinion, this article is made following the guidelines and no objectable differences from the other pages existing of it's kind. Kirubar (talk) 13:12, 07 June 2021

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
  • "It is named after A. K. Fazlul Huq, the first Prime Minister of Bengal, who was accorded the title Sher-e-Bangla ("The Tiger of Bengal")." - source?
  • Remove the space between the full stop and the ref in "home of both the men's and women's national teams. [1]"
  • "Women's One Day International and Twenty20 International cricket has also" => "Women's One Day International and Twenty20 International cricket have also"
  • No reason to bold the word century
  • "The first batsman to score a century in test at Mirpur" => "The first batsman to score a century in Test cricket at Mirpur"
  • "Gautam Gambhir was the first batsman to score a century in ODI on this ground" => "Gautam Gambhir was the first batsman to score a century in ODI cricket on this ground"
  • "Among the Bangladeshis, Mohammad Ashraful was the first batsman to reach the landmark score of 101 off 193 balls" - this makes it sound like the landmark was 101 specifically, rather than a century. I would reword completely to "Mohammad Ashraful was the first Bangladeshi batsman to score a century at the ground, scoring 101 off 193 balls". You also need to say who this was against and when.
  • "though he could manage to make his team victorious" - don't think this is relevant. Just because a player scored a century it isn't unusual that his team lost.
  • "to score a century in an ODI match in this ground" => "to score a century in an ODI match at this ground"
  • "The only centurion in this ground in T20Is is Ahmed Shehzad, scoring 111 runs off just 62 balls" - against whom? When?
  • Dates don't sort correctly in the tables
  • Players' names don't sort correctly in the tables
  • "The following table summarises the Test centuries scored at Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium" - not needed
  • "There are 48 ODI centuries scored on this ground" => "There have been 48 ODI centuries scored on this ground"
  • "The following table summarises the One Day International centuries scored at Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium" - not needed
  • "The following table summarises the Twenty20 International centuries scored at Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium" - not needed
  • Do not show titles in all caps in references
  • In several refs you show the publisher as HowStat, but in the last one it's www.howstat.com
  • That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
:@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much. I fixed all the issues and have edited the article. But I haven't understand what you meant by 'Players' names don't sort correctly'. Actually like other list articles, I also normally sorted the list of centuries according to date(old to new/ascending to descendng). And the date sorting is also correct as I checked. Please check the current version of article again.A.A Prinon (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Players' names should sort based on their surname, so for example Brendan Taylor should sort under T, not B. Also, the dates still don't sort correctly - if you sort on that column it goes 20th March, 2010 > 6th May, 2015 > 11th November, 2018 > 21st October, 2013 > 22nd February, 2020 > 29th October, 2011, which is clearly completely wrong -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just spotted two listings for "26th Decmeber, 2008", which is spelt incorrectly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.A Prinon: - I see that the date sorting has now been fixed. Any idea when you will be able to fix the incorrect sorting of players' names......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:, Actually, I sorted out the list according to date. And in case of the centuries which were scored on the same day, I put the players' name first who reached the centuries first. For example- Brendan Taylor and Mahmudullah both scored century on that ground in the same match. But I put Taylor's name first because he scored century earlier than Mahmudullah in that match. Other list articles of this type also sort like this. A.A Prinon (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.A Prinon: - you misunderstand what I am saying. It's nothing to do with players scoring centuries on the same day. What I mean is that when you sort the "player" column (click on the sort icon at the top) they do not appear in the right order. If you do this on the Test table, Alastair Cook appears at the top (based on his first name starting with A) when in fact he should sort under C (because his surname starts with C). Does that make sense? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:, Now I got it. Please give some time. I'm working on it and will inform you when fixed. A.A Prinon (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Players name sorting probably fixed! A.A Prinon (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing a caption and both column and rowscopes.

  • Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
  • For each column header, you should have e.g. `!scope="col"|Player`
  • For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `|1` it should be `!scope="row"|1`
--PresN 14:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Please wait and give some time. I will try to fix those. — A.A Prinon  Conversation 06:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: I have added the captions and the coloumscopes in the tables. And I have also corrected formatting per MOS:DATB. But I have not added any rowscopes for primary cell, because rowscope for primary cell is not needed in this article. All other article of this type related to cricket centuries also don't have rowscopes for primary cell like `!scope="row"|1`, as it does not comply to manual of style provided by WikiProject Cricket for cricket-related lists. Hope, now everything is fine in your views. Thanks. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 15:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.A Prinon: What manual of style are you referring to? I can't find anything linked from WP:CRICKET. The "primary" cell doesn't need to be the first one (though ideally it is), and you can make it so there's no visual effect if you don't like the look, but the cells in 1 column need to be marked with rowscopes or the table does not meet the MOS for accessibility. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that prior cricket FLs don't have rowscopes, as while it's been a requirement for quite a while we only started firmly enforcing it relatively recently, but unfortunately "the tables in cricket lists don't need to meet accessibility standards because WP:CRICKET doesn't want to" isn't going to work. --03:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • Not sure if I missed these first time round, or if the content has changed since.....
  • Image caption says "as of February 2021". We're now nearly in May.
  • "On 17 January 2018 during 2017–18 Bangladesh Tri-Nation Series" => "On 17 January 2018 during the 2017–18 Bangladesh Tri-Nation Series"
  • No need to link Bangladesh national cricket team twice in the first paragraph
  • Ireland not linked in the third paragraph
  • "The only centurion in this ground in T20Is is Ahmed Shehzad, scoring" => "The only centurion at this ground in T20Is is Ahmed Shehzad, who scored"
  • Bangladesh national cricket team linked twice more in the last two paragraphs - neither link is needed
  • "Only one Twenty20 International centuries" => "Only one Twenty20 International century"
  • Ref 11: "Shere Bangla National Stadium, Mirpur, CricketArchive. Retrieved 2021-04-14" - this date format is not consistent with all the other refs
  • Hopefully that's finally it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude, Fixed! — A.A Prinon  Conversation 10:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment
  • Why are the "as of" dates on the three tables different and one of them more than a year ago? This gives the impression that the data is not up to date (i.e. there could have been more T20I centuries achieved there since March 2020) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: The data is up to date. "As of" dates are placed according to the date of last match played on this ground. The last T20I match on this ground was played on 11 March 2020. After then, no T20I matches was played on this ground. So, how could there be any century scored after 11 March 2020. A.A Prinon (Alternative) (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the article doesn't say that no T20I matches have been played on this ground since last March, does it? All it says is that the data is accurate as of last March, so a casual reader might look at it and think "well, that data is only accurate up to March 2020 and it's now April 2021. For all I know there have been 5 more T20I centuries scored since then and the article hasn't been updated". If you want to keep the date as being the date of the last match played there, then you should put "As of 11 March 2020, the date of the most recent match played at the ground, only one Twenty20 International century has been scored at...." to make it clear what the situation is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your suggestion. Fixed that as you suggested. — A.A Prinon  Conversation 07:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TRM for ping. I think it will be nice if we can find 1 or 2 sources in any language where these centuries are discussed as a set or group. Regarding AfDs, I think I'm at the very end of my so-called purge, energy is already low. I am about to stop these regular AfDs altogether. Thanks again. Störm (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Störm: Thanks for commenting. Actually, I am working for a long time about finding sources of these lists. I recently have found a source which is not visible in google search but in ESPNcricinfo. See here, here and also here. These sources are enough for these type of articles. Besides these are also discussed as a group in HowStat. — A.A Prinon  Conversation 06:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these centuries discussed? Can we just check that before we waste our time when Störm continues the AFD drive and takes this one down too? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: These are discussed in different match reports of the respective matches in which century was scored. We often see different discussions or reports where it is discussed that it is the Xth century scored at this ground, scored by X player etc. And please post further replies on my talk page other than posting here. — A.A Prinon  Conversation 09:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't doubt that passing mentions are made, but Störm has been nominating articles exactly like this for deletion. And they have often changed their minds on things. I don't want us to waste time in this process if this is about to be deleted soon (or indeed, after some unknown pause). This is directly pertinent to this nomination, even the existence of the very page. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • there are quite a few missing authors: refs 4, 7, 9,
  • ref 11 seems to be formatted differently (has a comma)
  • ref 27 shouldn't be all caps, recommend title case
Reliability
  • seems fine
Verifiability
@Aza24: Hi. I have fixed all the issues you raised. Thanks for commenting. Please reply here to state if now it is ok or not. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 09:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A.A Prinon, just one more thing to address, Knight 2013 in ref 13 doesn't seem to link to any book, will be happy to pass the source review what that is addressed. Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @Aza24: Yes, I have replaced the ref 13 with a better source. Thank you. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 04:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a nuisance, that ref looks great but we need a page number for verifiability. Also, I think the publisher is Sangam Books, right? Aza24 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @Aza24: I have added the page number. Thank you and hoping for your positive response now. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 06:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment edit

Hi @A.A Prinon:,

  • Ref 11 were not access please fix it.
  • It is better to link Bangladeshi.

(Fade258 (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Fade258: Thanks for comment. I have changed the ref 11 fully because CricketArchive is a subscription site, so hard to verify. And the issue which is raised by you, I have also input that one in the new ref- that is I have given the URL access date. And the second one you said- It is better to link Bangladeshi. Actually, when any same word is already linked in an article, it is not needed to link the word all the time it is used. At the very first sentence of the article, the word "Bangladesh" is already linked. Bangladeshi is just its demonym, so it also links to the article Bangladesh, so it is not needed to link Bangladeshi. I hope now everything is ok and please give a Support if you find no other problems in your views. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 08:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prinon, That is ok but Bangladesh is linked twice One of them is recently done by you and Another one is on the Bangladesh Vs Zimbabwe. (Fade258 (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Fade258: That is different. The word Bangladesh in Bangladesh vs Zimbabwe links to the article Bangladesh national cricket team but "Bangladesh" at the top of the page is linked to the country Bangladesh. Any more issues? Thanks. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 08:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prinon, Ohh sorry for my missque.(Fade258 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Fade258: It is ok, now you may please share your thoughts. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 08:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- As per all the wikipedia guidelines and those guidelines which is used while creating of this article. Great Job @A.A Prinon.(Fade258 (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support - The page fulfils wikipedia guidlines and it has enough number of references as well. Proudly Indian 9:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Director comment – I was going to ping the nominator to see if PresN's accessibility comment had been resolved, but I see that A.A Prinon has been indeffed for harassment. Does anyone want to have a look at this and fix the issue if it's still outstanding? That seems to be the main obstacle to promotion at this point, barring further comments. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look Giants2008. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My accessibility concern has been addressed; closing as promoted. --PresN 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_international_cricket_centuries_at_the_Sher-e-Bangla_National_Cricket_Stadium/archive1&oldid=1036347907"