Comments from —Vensatry (Ping)
Lead image needs alt text"a skilled fast pace bowler" – skilled is non-neutral best to have it in quotes supported with a ref. Also remove pace from Bowling (cricket) since you've placed Fast bowler (pipe link) as a prefix."Fiery Fred" and the following sentence needs to be sourced
You need to have aggressive placed within quotes —Vensatry (Ping) 16:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is still not fixed. Also the succeeding sentence needs to be sourced. —Vensatry (Ping) 09:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #2 is deadWickets linked twice in the lede. Perhaps you could link "bowler to take 300 wickets in a Test career" to List of bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets in Test cricket."fewer than 40 bowlers have taken more than 15 five-wicket hauls" – To date, 41 bowlers have taken 15+ fifers
"three instances of him taking five wickets in each innings" –> three instances of him taking five or more wickets in each inningsHis first five-for came on July 17, 1953" – If you check the scorecard, the year seems to be 1952 and he did not take a fifer on the very first day of the match. Better to remove the date
- that was just a typo, fixed. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not fixed. Date needs to be removed (while retaining month and year). Also there is no source for the "third Test match" —Vensatry (Ping) 09:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"8/31" needs an explanation like he conceded 31 runs while taking 8 wickets."successful innings bowling" –> successful bowling figuresNot sure what you mean by "in which he took a career-best 34 wickets". Did he take 34 wickets in the tournament?
- Yes, I've changed it to "across the series" S.G.(GH) ping! 09:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the last sentence in the lead. Without a source this looks like a POV. He never played ODIs as he last played a Test match in 1964, which is seven years before the introduction of ODIs.
—Vensatry (Ping) 05:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In my eyes that's what it says: he retired prior to the rise of ODI cricket so did not have an opportunity to take five-wicket hauls in it, though he did play List-A cricket. I've reworded it a bit. Thoughts? S.G.(GH) ping! 09:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could say he never got an opportunity to play One-day cricket as the format came came into being only in 1971. He may nor may not have picked up fifers if he had played ODIs. The present structure is unsourced and looks like a POV. —Vensatry (Ping) 16:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended everything else you've suggested. Please let me know your thoughts on my two comments. Many thanks. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended. Any further thoughts @Vensatry:? --S.G.(GH) ping! 19:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence needs a source —Vensatry (Ping) 09:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've done all of the above now. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
"Trueman's seventeen five-wicket hauls places him joint-third in a list of most five-wicket hauls by England Test players, behind Sydney Barnes and Ian Botham" – Mention Botham first as he is leading the list."eight wickets at a cost of 31 runs" – Cost doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Rewrite the text it in simple words"career best" probably needs to be hyphenated
- Done and done. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the key only complete sentences should have a full-stop
- Okay. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Man of the match awards did not enter Test cricket until the 1980s, after Trueman had retired" The source doesn't exactly convey the text. "Player of the match" titles were given occasionally even during the 1960s although under a different name as "Bowler/Batsman of the match".
- Any reason for not including row scopes?
- I don't know what that is. --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at other lists —Vensatry (Ping) 18:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Harris or myself fixed this. Is it right? S.G.(GH) ping! 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that for you! —Vensatry (Ping) 18:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You could use the "asterisk" inside the date column instead of wickets shaded with a color.
- That key is the same for all the other five-wicket haul featured lists. Will you insist on the change? --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove the explanation for "Result" in the key as it's too obvious to anyone. Perhaps include a description for Draw.
- That key is the same for all the other five-wicket haul featured lists, with the result caption the same in each one. Will you insist on the change? --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, it has a point to stay. However, a description for "Drawn" matches should be included in the key; it's highly useful to the readers though others don't have it. —Vensatry (Ping) 18:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add a description. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The symbol (asterisk) is too small. A color might be helpful in easily identifying it. I'm not forcing you on this and it's upto you. —Vensatry (Ping) 18:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look at other examples and see if anything better is used. --S.G.(GH) ping! 11:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as we aren't using the spade symbol for MotM - shall I swap them around? S.G.(GH) ping! 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can! —Vensatry (Ping) 03:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done so. Still trying to find a better citation for the MotM comment. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The wickets col. needs a secondary sort corresponding to the number of runs conceded.
- I'm afraid I don't know how to do that. I did not come across it in the other featured lists. --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to look up how to do this - did you see if Harrias had done it with his edits? S.G.(GH) ping! 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "ESPN Cricinfo" italicized in ref #11 alone? Also you've used just "Cricinfo" in some references.
- This is an inconsistency resulting from copying references from other Featured Lists on the same topic, I'll make them all consistent. --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"ESPN Cricinfo" –> "ESPNcricinfo"
—Vensatry (Ping) 09:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do that. It matches ESPNcricinfo. --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vensatry: Addressed some more, though I've a couple of questions regarding one or two of them. Thank you for your help thus far if I forget to say later. Appreciated. --S.G.(GH) ping! 13:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
