Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of World XI ODI cricketers/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 User:Sephiroth BCR 20:58, 29 November 2008 [1].

List of World XI ODI cricketers

edit

Notified:WP Cricket, User:Stephen Turner.

I don't feel this meets the criteria for a featured topic. While the prose is okay and the lead engaging, it is not particularly comprehensive, it is out of date and has a reference (note, a single reference) that links to CricInfo page on World XI results on one series, rather than any kind of list of current capped players. The structure does not offer any kind of special features such as the ability to shuffle the list according to which facet you wish to order it, it doesn't have much visual appeal either. Thus, I have FLRC'd it for comment. SGGH speak! 12:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note of thanks to the user who notified Stephen Turner, and put the nofitications on this page. SGGH speak! 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the Cricinfo reference to one that shows all matches and will update if there are any more. I can't find such a reference on CricketArchive or any other sites. 12:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Sam Korn (smoddy)
  • Remove for now - just one reference!? iMatthew (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not experienced in FL matters, so I don't know whether this is the end of the world. The information here is all provided by that reference, it is uncontroversial and the reference is reliable. Furthermore, the reference is the only one, so far as I can see, that exists. Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • More than one reference should be used in order to give objective information about the subject. A key section is needed here, as well.--Crzycheetah 03:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Remove - One reference does not verify the entire list. The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEDE and the way it starts is a big no-no, "This is a list of ___" is discouraged in FL's. It also seems to me that it needs to be updated, last update was October 2005. Fails FL Cr 1,2,3,5--SRX 16:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - after the expansions to this list, it now complies with WP:WIAFL.--SRX 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the reference does verify the whole list, under any conceivable definition of "verify" (check it!). It is not out of date, as there have been no World XI matches since October 2005. If it is not acceptable for a featured list to have but one reference, fair enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Korn (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Could User:Crzycheetah be more specific about a "key section", please? What do you envisage? The details cannot be updated as the last match was in 2005 but I do wonder if there is too much WP:STATS here. I still have an open mind, especially as I'm unfamiliar with the ropes of this process and its "big non-nos". BlackJack | talk page 06:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – there are several issues that need to be addressed:
  • The "this is a list..." style is no longer used and needs to be changed. Done
  • Please right-align the image. Done
  • The lead is entirely unsourced.
  • Give a brief explanation what an "over" is for non-cricket people.
Very few (if any) cricket articles explain what an over is, they simply wikilink the term in the first instance. Generally this seems to be acceptable as it is a widely known term for those who follow cricket, IMO. SGGH speak! 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to incorporate the items in parenthesis into the text.
  • "Where more than one player won his first ODI cap in the same match, those players are listed alphabetically by surname" has an awkward structure. Change to "In cases in which more than one player won his first ODI cap in the same match, these players are listed alphabetically by surname" Done
  • Put a section header on the list.
  • Given the heavy amount of statistics, sortability would be a good option.
I have tried to implement this but I can't get it to stop sorting the uppermost row of "Batting", "Bowling" etc. Hopefully someone with more expertise will come along. SGGH speak! 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have sort of got it, but someone will still need to be looked at SGGH speak! 18:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else has removed what I changed SGGH speak! 23:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the links in the "Team" column need to be fixed.
  • Use en-dashes for empty columns. Done
  • "2005-" - use en-dashes please. Done
  • Why are there asterisks on items in the HS column?
An asterisk denotes an innings that ended not out SGGH speak! 18:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the lead has been significantly expanded and I believe the article now satisfies criteria 1, 2, and 5. It always satisfied criterion 3. Wisden/cricinfo is considered pretty much definitive in the cricketing world. One reference for the statistics is sufficient. Also a key has been added, although having two separate tables looks frankly ridiculous. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The separate table part is only temporary by me trying to get the sorting thing working, awaiting someone with more knowledge to come and finish the job, as I stated above. SGGH speak! 19:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate why it was done (if you look at the article history you'll see I tried to integrate the two tables, then understood why they were separate), but since the two don't line up it does seem silly. I don't know who to ask for help, any ideas? Nev1 (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at this version, you'll see I had something approximating what we want, only with the rows the wrong way round. Closer? Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the top part for now, as it has occured to me that we don't really need it. The column headings make it pretty clear whether its fielding, batting or bowling... SGGH speak! 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea I think. I did the same on list of Irish ODI cricketers, but was waiting to get some other opinions before I started changing other articles. Nev1 (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by SatyrTN
  • The table needs its own section header
  • The table also needs a key
  • Instead of the separate header table, which doesn't quite match up, I recommend using the "Key" section to describe each column header, and have two sub-sections of the key for Batting, Bowling, and Fielding. See the current FLC List of Irish ODI cricketers for a key and imagine the sub-sections :)
  • Column headers should not be wikilinked - that can be done in the Key, too.
  • You may need to make use of the {{sort}} template for the "Best" column.
  • Per MOS:FLAG, having the flag in this table doesn't add anything the text doesn't already show. They should probably be removed.
  • You should make use of {{sortname}} for the "Name" column.
  • Oh - now I see the Key. That should be before the table :)
  • Weak Remove until some of the above have been addressed. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Key expanded and before table, table sortable, top row delinked, header added, and flags removed. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • an innings that ended not out should either be an inning that ended not out or innings that ended not out
    • It is "a batsman's innings" there is no "inning" in cricket, as far as I am aware "an innings that ended not out" is correct, see Innings. SGGH speak! 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement above the key that says Statistics are correct as of 30 October 2005. is either misleading or needs expanding. If there have been no games since October 2005 and there aren't likely to be any, it should be changed to something like "Statistics are correct through the last XI ODI game played, 30 October 2005." or something like that. If there may be more games played, then expand it a bit to explain: "Statistics are correct as of 30 October 2005. No games have been played since then."
Done. An innings in cricket is one of those strange words which is the same singular and plural, so there is no need to change the sentence as the grammar is correct. Nev1 (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support for keeping this FL. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have made High Score sortable in the table, was there a particular reason why it was set as unsortable before? SGGH speak! 10:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd thought it was unsortable, when I was playing around with the preview I must have done something weird because it wasn't sorting it correctly. Nev1 (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2008 (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_World_XI_ODI_cricketers/archive1&oldid=1088720042"