Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Cricket World Cup records/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Dabomb87 17:02, 22 November 2009 [1].

List of Cricket World Cup records edit

Toolbox
Notified WikiProject Cricket. Main contributor and nominator are inactive.

This June 2007 promotion has numerous issues that cause it to fail modern FL criteria:

  • Referencing is insufficient. It's unclear what, if anything, it citing many of the tables. Much of the text in the list is also uncited. This is worth a delisting by itself.
    • Doing this one. It is, as you say, inadequate now, hopefully you can already see a difference in the referencing, at least... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, all the facts in the tables now have separate references, all {{cite web}} formatted. Obviously if there are further refs needed for associated prose, they have been (or will shortly be) added, once the OR is cut down a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is two whole sentences, which is way too small for an FL now. Two or three paragraphs are typical for a 2009 FL.
    • Ditto, that will be worked on, but perhaps not immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead has been expanded considerably and hopefully meets with a mild snort of approval. It probably needs copyediting etc but it's much more comprehensive than before. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Notation section has a couple of headers with words that should be de-capitalized as they are not proper nouns. The current players could be noted with a dagger, as is done in List of Test cricket records.
  • Some odd structuring at the end. See also should go before references, and external links should be its own section, not a sub-section.
  • Haven't taken a close look at the writing yet, but this is an original research red flag, in addition to being ungrammatical: "The record for lowest scores are considered infamous and are mainly acheived by weaker sides against stronger teams. This trend continues in many records, including that of highest scores and highest winning margins."
  • There are two disambiguation links that need to be fixed to go to the intended article.
    • Dabs gone.
  • This is not an FL requirement, but an image for the lead would be nice, if an appropriate one can be found.

These are merely a starting point, since I'm no cricket expert; the first two are of the greatest importance. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a lot of work needs to be done on this one. I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. There is a lot wrong with it, including all your above points, but most noticeably the large chunk of whitespace where the images haven't been aligned properly. My main comment would be that it doesn't appear to be a "list". Like the 2007 Cricket World Cup (an infamous fiasco), it seems to have gone all wrong and has turned into a start-class article about the competition! ----Jack | talk page 04:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problems I noticed have been resolved by The Rambling Man. It seems okay to me now. ----Jack | talk page 13:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I've only just added the images and will be working on the above points. I will also work on whitespace. And we've had precedents for FLs which have a similar layout (such as List of Ipswich Town F.C. records and statistics) so I'm not sure that's a big issue. I'll continue trying, but it seems I'm fighting a losing battle already! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, what problem are you experiencing with "images [that] haven't been aligned properly"? In Safari and Firefox I've got no whitespace problem at all... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The last two images create whitespace. I'd remove them.--Cheetah (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think forcing the widths of some of those tables caused issues - how do the images look for you guys now? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's fixed, thanks to Jack & Cheetah for getting back to me... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - any of the above reviewers care to pop back to have a look and see if this is heading in the right direction as far as they're concerned? Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all images now have alt text. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no dab links, all external links are currently "live". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck all of my initial comments above. Have a few quick comments on the writing to offer:
  • Team overall: "with India scoring 413 runs against Bermuda." This is one of those noun+-ing sentence structures that the FAC prose people don't like. See if it can be reworded.
  • The prose after One tournament and Streaks has no cites; is the table cite supposed to cover it?
  • Batting overall: "He also has most Man of the Year awards." Add "the" in the middle?
  • Age: "with 2 being from the Netherlands." Another awkwardly structured sentence to be zapped and improved.
  • In the references, make a consistent choice between Cricinfo and Cricinfo.com.
Great job again so far. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, thanks for further comments, anything else? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The title of most consecutive defeats are mostly held by ICC Associate Members (the second tier of international cricket)." I don't follow; how can a record be "mostly" held? Also, shouldn't it be "is", not "are"? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Looks to meet FL standard once again after the many needed fixes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (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_removal_candidates/List_of_Cricket_World_Cup_records/archive1&oldid=1138489832"