Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shane Warne/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 Giants2008 21:12, 21 October 2011 [1].

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shane Warne edit

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shane Warne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): User:joesayers talk 02:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC), The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FL criteria. It is also very similar to featured lists for Glenn McGrath and Muttiah Muralitharan. Thanks for your time. User:joesayers talk 02:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should change the symbols as they are not ACCESS-compliant. Replace the ♠ and * with the {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}} templates (the symbols redirect there, so you can just put in the braces) and the corresponding alt text.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thadvice and I have changed the symbols to the dagger and double dagger. If there is anything else please dont hesitate to let me know and I will change it. User:joesayers talk 08:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Not sure it is fewer than 30 now, I just did a rough count and I think it's 32 with 15 or more 5ers...
  • I think you can link "bowling figures".
  • Cricinfo indicates Warne gave up Test cricket in 2007, this article says 2006....
  • No need to relink SCG in the lead. Nor the England cricket team.
  • "708 Test wickets in his career and 293 ODI wickets." -> "708 Test and 293 ODI wickets in his career."
  • "10 wickets or more" -> "10 or more wickets"
  • five-wicket haul -> hyphens needed in the key.
  • I fixed the hyphens (turned them into en-dashes) for you but you need a space before the year in the title of pretty much all those Cricinfo references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done all above changes. Thanks for your time. User:joesayers talk 16:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. It's not "fewer than 32", it IS 32 I think. Can you ref "after he helped Australia regain The Ashes in a 5–0 whitewash. "? Also think you could merge the last two sentences of the lead in reverse, so "He announced his retirement.... having taken 708 Test and ... wickets in his career". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "fewer than 32" comment and referenced the whitewash in 2007. The last sentences in the lead have also been merged, I do think it reads better this way. Thanks User:joesayers talk 17:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • "behind only Sri Lankan, Muttiah Muralitharan." remove only we've already established he is second so its not needed
  • table fails WP:ACCESS see MOS:DTT for more information
  • Is there any point in the ODI table being sortable when there is only one row?

NapHit (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes regarding the comment "behind only Sri Lankan, Muttiah Muralitharan." and have also made the ODI table not sortable. In regard to the WP:ACCESS i'm afraid I have not had much experience in this area and would need more detailed instruction and direction in order to improve the accessibility of the tables. Thanks User:joesayers talk 01:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS:DTT page should provide you with the information, if not just look at other lists that are up for nomination, they have the code in them. NapHit (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
* You link five-wicket haul twice in the first two sentences: only link the first use. You are also inconsistent, linking to "five-wicket haul" the first time and "five wicket haul" the second.
  • Link cricketer directly to cricket, and lose the link in the following sentence.
  • "and only 32 bowlers have taken more than 15 five-wicket hauls in their Test cricket careers." – I'm not keen on this: for one thing it seems an almost irrelevant statistic: without context it isn't offering much, but more worryingly it increases the upkeep on the article: are you really going to want to keep coming back and making this number bigger as another player passes that number?
  • "Warne is one of the most experienced Australian cricketers, he is the second leading wicket ticket in Test cricket with 708 wickets, again behind Muralitharan." – This seems like two seperate sentences that have been hammered together unflatteringly. Even changing the "he" after the comma to "and" would improve matters, but it could probably do with being rewritten completely.
  • "In 2000, Warne was named fourth of five cricketers named as one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Century behind Sir Donald Bradman, Sir Garfield Sobers and Sir Jack Hobbs." – Repetition of "named" and generally slightly clunky: also, if you are naming three of the other four, it might be worth naming the fifth too, not sure though.
  • The second paragraph reads like a string of bullet points which have just been listed together in what looks like prose: give that the criteria asks for "professional standards of writing", I would suggest that this list is currently a fair distance from the mark required. That said, with some work I don't see any reason why it shouldn't eventually become a featured list: the subject is certainly worthy of it! Harrias talk 21:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue is the "bitty" nature of the second paragraph: as I say above, it seems like a string of bullet points put together. If you could make it flow a bit better, I think it would greatly improve the article. Harrias talk 10:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to improve the flow, let me know what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if Australian and Sri Lankan really need linking: WP:OVERLINK would suggest probably not, but if so, they should definitely both link to the cricket teams (at the moment, Australian links to the team, Sri Lankan links to Sri Lanka.)
  • "He is twelfth on the all time time list.." – remove the second "time".
  • ".. in January 1992, taking his first five-wicket haul.." – I think "and took" might work better than "taking".
  • "Warne's career-best bowling figures in an innings is 8 wickets for 71 runs which he achieved in 1994 against England in Brisbane, while his best match figures are 12 wickets for 128 runs against South Africa in Sydney in 1994, Warne has been most successful against England, taking 11 five-wicket hauls against them, the first in 1993 and the last one in 2006." – At the moment this is all one sentence: should there be a full stop after 1994?
  • The next sentence after this one starts with a lower-case "and". This bit definitely needs looking at more closely: with a full-stop after 1994, a comma after 2006 would probably flow into this correctly?
  • I might be biased, but is the bit about helping Australia win the Ashes 5–0 really necessary in this article?
  • For the grounds, Trent Bridge labelled purely as Trent Bridge, but Edgbaston as Edgbaston Cricket Ground (to pick one example): I'd suggest that Edgbaston and Newlands are both listed without the "Cricket Ground" bit.
  • Cricinfo should more properly be listed as ESPNcricinfo in the references.
  • Reference 1 needs a location for the publisher (Bloomington, Indiana). AuthorHouse also have a WP page to link to.
  • In the key, it should really clarify that the 10 wickets refers to those taken by Warne: most Test matches have 10 wickets taken in them!
  • Also, The Oval would be better listed as being The Oval, London rather than The Oval, Kennington: I'm sure plenty of people don't know where Kennington is (or only do because The Oval is there!)
    • Given everything else in the table is linked, it looks a bit odd that London isn't: probably worth linking that too. Harrias talk 06:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 2 needs the same. Harrias talk 19:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harrias, thanks so much for taking the time to come back and comment here. I think I've dealt with all your notes but please feel free to nudge me further should I not have satisfied your requirements. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just these three points outstanding now I think. Harrias talk 06:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good to me now. Harrias talk 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am retiring from Wikipedia due to other commitments and I apologise for not finishing what I started but I think this could with a bit of work be a featured list. If anyone would like to take over the list the please do, it would be a sincere shame for it not to be completed. Thanks User:joesayers talk 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame, I'm prepared to take it on and see it through. Harrias, if you could provide a comprehensive review, I'd be very grateful. I've addressed a few of your concerns already but I'd like to make sure it's perfect. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Quick comments –

  • Don't need the comma after Sri Lankan in the first paragraph.
  • A One Day International link would be nice. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done both of those, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —SpacemanSpiff 12:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -- Just a few minor things (as the nom isn't available I was going to fix these myself, but as there are a couple of others working on the list, I'm not doing so).
  • Key: "Player of the match" IMO should be changed to "Man of the match" with a direct link to "Man of the match#Cricket"
    • The reference used (Cricinfo) refers to it as "Player of the match" so I'll keep it as that, but I used your suggested wikilink for clarity. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test Table
    • 1 -- Ground should be "Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney"
    • 32 -- Innings should be 3
    • 27 -- Innings should be 4
    • 31/32 and 26/27 -- not a problem, but a general question: should the rows be combined as the double-dagger doesn't seem to get the message across about it being the same match?
      • Creating rowspans will mess with the sorting so I'm hoping you're okay if we don't do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't think about the sorting problem, so I guess we don't have a choice on this one. —SpacemanSpiff 16:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any reason why Edgbaston doesn't use the full name in 17/30 while it does in 2?
  • ODI Table
    • 1 -- Ground should be "Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney"
    • Resizing is probably needed to keep spacing similar to the Test table
      • At the moment the table is forced to any column widths at all. I'm reluctant to do that, particularly because he's only got one ODI, and forcing column widths for a one-row table would be a real shame. Is it a deal breaker? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a deal breaker, but if your screen shows the bottom of the Test table and this one, you'll notice that it looks quite odd, especially given that the columns are identical (I thought that it looks odd only because it's a single row table!). If it's not a major concern for other folks, I'll ignore it. —SpacemanSpiff 16:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • General question: Warne has also played one ODI for the ICC World XI, so should there be some mention somewhere that all his five-fors have been for Australia?
  • —SpacemanSpiff 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment -- the sorting for wickets column needs some cleaning: All the entries use {{sort|05132|w}}. This key structure was created to sort wickets based on runs conceded e.g. 5 wickets conceding 50 runs would be sorted as better than 5 wickets conceding 70 runs and so on. Since the key remains unchanged across entries the sort template has no impact as the real sort is happening only on the display w and is just increasing the load time on the edit window. Either it could be changed to {{nts}} or use the right sortkey structure: {{sort|ddrrr|w}} dd = wickets in two digits (5 = 05) and rrr = 200 - runs conceded. A similar concept can be applied for runs conceded too to show 70 runs conceded for 7 wickets as better than 70 for 5. ddrrr would be replaced by xxxtt where xxx = runs in 3 digits (80 = 080) and tt = 10-wickets taken. —SpacemanSpiff 09:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my comments have been addressed, no other concerns. —SpacemanSpiff 17:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers, and thanks for your diligent review. I cannot believe I didn't check the sorting on this list. Perhaps I'm getting too old....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Stemonitis (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have two comments on what is basically a well-executed list...:
  • The names of the batsmen are inconsistently formatted. I don't particularly like the "PV Simmons" style (it would be "P. V. Simmons", at least, in normal text, if not "Phil Simmons"), but if there's a strong precedent in Wikipedia's coverage of cricket, then that's OK. In any case, they should all be formatted the same. (Many have additional full stops, or full first names instead of initials.) --Stemonitis (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's my belief that we typically follow the format of the source, in this case Cricinfo, which typically lists the batsmen (in your example) as PV Simmons. However, there are inconsistencies because ordinarily S. Anwar would be Saeed Anwar. I'll see about fixing these ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references are placed adjacent to "Won", "Lost" or "Draw" (should be "Drew" or "Drawn", or the others should be "Win" and "Lose", surely?), but they are presumably used to back up all the information in the row – the venue, the number of balls, the wickets taken, and so on. I could envisage either an extra column for the references, or putting the reference in the first column (probably the former). That way, it is clearer that everything is cited to a reliable source. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, I've worked on a few of these and that's never struck me before! Yes, I think Drawn is most appropriate. And if you would prefer to see an additional column for refs, then so be it. No skin off my nose! May be a bit of time before I can update it though. Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've addressed both of your comments, hopefully to your satisfaction! Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still unclear to me why the Pakistanis and some Indians (like "Yuvraj Singh") aren't abbreviated like the other batsman (as he is on List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan, for instance). --Stemonitis (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if we want to get into how Pakistanis/Indians etc wish for their names to be represented, then I must confess ignorance. As I said above, I've used the information in the source provided in each and every case. That, I believe, is the correct "verifiable" way of doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Also in your example, and this is a guess, Yuvraj would wish to be differentiated from any other Singh who happened to be in the team at the time? Just a guess though... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    • This isn't a question of verifiability, as I see it. There is no doubt about what your source says, or who it refers to. ("Yuvraj Singh" was the only "Y. Singh" on the team, so I don't think disambiguation explains it.) The question is about formatting, and you profess no knowledge of any reason to treat the Pakistanis and Indians differently. List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan is a featured list, and makes no such distinction between abbreviatable (for want of a better word) and un-abbreviatable names, so they clearly can be abbreviated. I don't think inconsistencies on other websites need influence us unduly; consistent formatting would look so much better than the existing mix. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think cricketing convention is such that these players are represented as they are in this list. If Murali's list isn't following this format then perhaps the nominator of that list had a different rationale (and upon checking, Murali's list contains its own inconsistencies, e.g. Lance and Nicky in fiver #23). While I indeed to "profess to no knowledge of any reason" for the difference, I know there conventionally is a reason. Unless there's a strong consensus against the format used by the scorecards as verified by the sources, I'll be keeping it per regular convention as I strongly disagree that your proposal "would look so much better". Perhaps one or more of the Indian/Pakistani contributors could assist with this matter. In any case, thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To add in my own thoughts: I also have no idea the reasoning behind this, but there is clear consistency: taking an example, during the 2003 Cricket World Cup: Wisden records names on the scorecard in the style "S. R. Tendulkar" and "M. E. Trescothick" however, in the same scorecards they say "Younis Khan" and "Yuvraj Singh" (Wisden 2004, pp. 988–990.) Scorecards on Cricinfo, CricketArchive, and the BBC all do the same, and the ICC's player rankings use the same format. I don't know exactly why it is: I would guess religion and naming conventions, but it is certainly consistent, and I would say definitely what we should be using. Harrias talk 19:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pakistani name is pretty useful on this: it basically suggests that the names used are all chosen, and my guess would be that as they ar eall chosen, it would be inappropriate to give one or the other greater prominence: hence they are not abbreviated. Harrias talk 19:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most cricketing publications and website use this form. Basically cricketers without a designated surname are left "as is". I believe this is something to do with Muslim and Sikh naming customs: for example, my old copy of Test Cricket Lists' lists Kabir Ali (England), Imtiaz Ali (Windies), Harbhajan Singh (India), Imran Khan (Pakistan), Abdur Razzak (Bangladesh); but Hobbs, JB (England), Greenidge, CG (West Indies), Tendulkar, SR (India), D'Souza, A (Pakistan). These are not distinctions based on nationality; rather, on the player's own personal preference. For example "Youhana, Y" became "Mohammad Yousuf" on scorecards after his conversion to Islam. IgnorantArmies 10:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a problem that's unlikely to go away, especially for subcontinental names. Most Indian names will be provided with initials on scorecards - e.g. RS Dravid, VVS Laxman, SM Gavaskar but there are exceptions to that -- Scorecards show N Kapil Dev (although Nikhanj technically comes at the end of his full name). Also, while for people like K Srikkanth, M Vijay, S Badrinath, S Venkataraghavan (and most Tamil/Telugu people among others where the surnames are patronymic) the names used on scorecards is their given name and not their surname. I'm not sure that religion is the defining reason for the way these names are treated. e.g. Nasser Hussain is from Chennai, but the scorecards say "N Hussain" while it's not the case with other players who share similar names. Likewise for Bedi, the scorecards say "BS Bedi" but his contemporary and Yuvraj's father is listed as "B Yograj Singh". And we also have "Yuvraj Singh" and "Harbhajan Singh". However, whatever this convention is, apparently every cricket writer knows about it and they are uniform in listing scorecards in this manner. A while back I tried to figure out some reasons for this, but I drew a blank. One possible explanation is that there are two "Yuvraj Singh"s who play cricket in India (the other has a middle name and is listed as Singh, YS) and likewise there was another "Harbhajan Singh" from another era, but that still doesn't explain some of the others like N Kapil Dev or B Yograj Singh. For the Kumble list that's up as an FL nom, I had made the format consistent for everyone as a stylistic preference. —SpacemanSpiff 10:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the simplest way to get around this would be to use first names for every player? IgnorantArmies 13:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to move this clearly stagnating issue (not helped by the original commentator not returning!) on a bit, I've opted to make them all consistent, regardless of how they appear in the sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have written sooner had there been anything else to say. I saw little gain from simply reiterating my point. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken this one step further, and used their full names, as used in their article. Quite honestly, I'm not sure why this wasn't done in the first place, thus avoiding the issues of consistency among different nationalities and imposing Western naming conventions on non-Western players. IgnorantArmies 09:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydokey. As I said before, it wasn't done that way in the first place because that's not what the sources say. But we're done now. I haven't the energy to argue the toss over this any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Stemonitis (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2011 (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_international_cricket_five-wicket_hauls_by_Shane_Warne/archive1&oldid=1089077283"