Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2007 Cricket World Cup statistics
2007 Cricket World Cup statistics edit
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, more than enough supports, one oppose to which the necessary enhancements were made.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Summarizes all the stats and records achieved in the 2007 Cricket World Cup. Nominating the article for FL status. Kalyan 06:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as a fellow editor of the page. Although saying that I realise that the lead is pretty small to the point of inadequate for a Featured List, expansion of that is required; brought it up on list's talk page. AllynJ 11:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose, what? I'll be glad to support once the lead is expanded, one short sentence is unacceptable. Also, under no circumstance does the reference provided account for all that information. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 15:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added contents to the lead section. I shall add references shortly. Since i am bad at copyedits, can someone review the lead section in the mean time. Kalyan 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that random statistics were just yanked to comprise the lead, but as I am entirely unfamiliar with cricket terminology someone else will need to give it a look I also removed {{Reflist}} set to two columns, as only one reference is provided. Also remember, as per WP:MOS, section headers should be sentence case. Lastly, I would think there should be a plethora of references and external links for such a recent, prominent event. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to the lead, i agree to all your points. With respect to references for indiv stat, please note that they have already been provided as SOURCE in each table. The points covered in the lead is not random as it starts with World records, then World Cup records and in the end, comparison wrt to other WC tournaments. Kalyan 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that random statistics were just yanked to comprise the lead, but as I am entirely unfamiliar with cricket terminology someone else will need to give it a look I also removed {{Reflist}} set to two columns, as only one reference is provided. Also remember, as per WP:MOS, section headers should be sentence case. Lastly, I would think there should be a plethora of references and external links for such a recent, prominent event. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good, covers all major statistics and records. should be an FA.DSachan 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I refuse to believe that one reference covers the entire article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, as of now. I'll support when refs are added to the remainding tables. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Support - I'm happy with the recent changes. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi., please look at my comment above. i was buying time on the references and it should be in there in the next day or so. Kalyan 14:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As an outsider to the world of cricket (who has tried to permeate its thick shell several times without success), I feel its my duty to note that I haven't really got a clue what the stats mean. This can be remedied quite easily, however, by linking the stats in the legend to pages like this one, for instance. Naturally this isn't really that objectionable (and I do like the list), so my best reccomendation to you is to skim through it and try to spot things that might not be immediately clear to a novice and link to that article. Here's a short list of things that confuse me:ODI, 100-partnership,sixes,balls (with reference to what it means in cricket),ducks,List A innings, fastest 50,wickets,overs,average,4wickets/innings,BBI,S/R,not-outs. I'm sure lots of these have their own articles that you can link to. Another thing...the legend doesn't match up to the order of appearance in the table. Thanks, JHMM13(Disc) 19:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I think you have a very valid point. I have tried to address all your terms by adding a wikilink to it or where none exists, added a note. Also, in the "See also" section, i have added the wikilink to cricket terms for new visitors to understand. Please let me know if this is OK. --Kalyan 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]