Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of centuries in women's Twenty20 International cricket/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 via FACBot (talk) 23:02:47 12 January 2020 (UTC) [1].

List of centuries in women's Twenty20 International cricket

edit

List of centuries in women's Twenty20 International cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the newest form of the centuries old game, this feat has only been achieved 20 times by 16 female cricketers. Following on from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket, I believe that this will be a great addition the cricket featured lists on the women's game. I await your feedback on this nomination. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "the two teams play a single innings, each of which is restricted...." - I know what this is meant to mean, but it doesn't make grammatical sense. I would suggest "each of the two teams plays a single innings, which is restricted...."
  • "The Twenty20 format was originally introduced by the England and Wales Cricket Board for the men's county cricket competition with...." - add a comma before "with"
  • "Dottin's innings set the record for the fastest WT20I century" - well obviously it set a record as the fastest, if it was the first ever. Do you mean that it is still the fastest?
  • "and is most aggressive" => "and is the most aggressive"
  • "with a strike rate with 248.88" => "with a strike rate of 248.88"
  • "Batting at number six, this was also one of two occasions...." - bit of a grammatical mess here, as the occasion didn't bat at number six. I suggest "Dottin batted at number six, and this was one of two occasions"
  • "by player batting at number five or lower" => "by a player batting at number five or lower"
  • "with two each centuries each" - don't need "each" in there twice
  • "when she reached 124 not" => "when she reached 124 not out"
  • "While at the age of 16 years and 233 days" => "At the age of 16 years and 233 days"
  • "Posting a total of 148 not out, this is highest individual score in a WT20I match" => "Healy's final total of 148 not out is the highest individual score in a WT20I match"
  • "There have been three instances where a player has scored a century in the second innings of a WT20I match including Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka" - until you get to the next sentence, the singling out of Atapattu here seems very random. I would suggest changing this sentence to simply "There have been three instances where a player has scored a century in the second innings of a WT20I match." and then having the next one as "Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures in the second innings of the first match of the WT20I series against Australia in September 2019, her team lost the match"
  • "This match was also one of three occasions where two T20I centuries were scored in the same match" - WT20I, surely?
  • "20 centuries have been scored by 16 different players from 789 WT20I matches"W => "20 centuries have been scored by 16 different players in 789 WT20I matches"
  • "Centuries have scored at 13 different grounds" => "Centuries have been scored at 13 different grounds"
  • 4 and 3 in that last sentence should be written as words
Thank you very much ChrisTheDude for your review. I have addressed each of your comments above. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Teratix

edit
  • a score of one hundred or more runs by a batsman I'm not too familiar with the terminology of women's cricket, but given the subject of the article, isn't it appropriate to use "batter" or "batswoman" throughout?
  • A women's Twenty20 International (WT20I) is an international cricket match between two teams, each having WT20I status, as determined by the International Cricket Council (ICC). In a women's Twenty20 match, each of the two teams plays a single innings, which is restricted to a maximum of 20 overs. Switch the order of these sentences, so the format is explained first, and shorten: "In a women's Twenty20 match, each team plays a single innings, which is restricted to a maximum of 20 overs. A women's Twenty20 International (WT20I) match is played between teams with WT20I status, as determined by the International Cricket Council (ICC). " Also put the A and B footnotes here.
  • an international cricket match between two teams ... each of the two teams plays a single innings ... New Zealand defeated England by nine runs "cricket", "innings" and "runs" have already been linked in the first sentence.
  • was scored by Deandra Dottin of the West Indies who scored reword to avoid "scored" twice in close succession
  • Dottin, Danielle Wyatt of England and Australia's Meg Lanning and Beth Mooney all lead the list with two centuries each the sentences before are talking about WT20I centuries scored by players batting at number five or lower, so it's not immediately clear what "the list" refers to here.
  • The oldest player to score a WT20I century is New Zealand's Suzie Bates who was aged 30 years and 277 days I would put a comma after "Bates", just to break up the sentence a bit.
  • during the Tri-Nation Series with England this sentence is already long; is "with England" really necessary?
  • North Sydney Oval in Sydney in October 2019 cut "in Sydney", as the venue name makes that clear.
  • Healy's final total "total" implies "final"
  • Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures during the second innings of the opening match of the WT20I series against Australia in September 2019, Sri Lanka lost the match This sentence takes a very long time to come to its key point. Change to "Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures during the second innings, Sri Lanka lost the opening match of the WT20I series against Australia in September 2019".
  • a team was defeated with player scoring a century change to "a team was defeated despite a player scoring a century."
  • 11 of the 54 teams that hold women's Twenty20 International status any reason why the abbreviation is dropped here?
  • and that have played a WT20I match cut "that"
  • Alyssa Healy holds the record for the highest innings score shorten to "Alyssa Healy posted the highest innings score", as "highest" already implies "record".
  • In the key, the meanings of "player", "team", "opposition", "venue" and "date" are so obvious they can be deleted altogether
  • In the table, use "Inn." to signify the term has been abbreviated.
  • "Ref" -> Ref. ({{abbr|Ref.|Reference}})
  • full women's Twenty20 International status to all its members as 1 July 2018 "on July 2018" maybe?
  • No player of the match was awarded "named" sounds a bit more natural
  • Two tiny issues I just noticed: per MOS:IMGSIZE, specifying image widths in px is deprecated, use the "upright" parameter instead; and there's several line breaks underneath the key for no apparent reason (looks especially ugly on mobile). – Teratix ₵ 09:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just like to note I disagree with Dey subrata's three unresolved suggestions. They will make the lead excessively lengthy and will cause the introduction to dedicate too much time to comparatively insignificant details. The reader can find the information themselves in the table. – Teratix ₵ 14:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Responding to Dey subrata) The purpose of the lead is to introduce the topic of the list to the uninitiated reader and note significant aspects of the list, that are not adequately covered in the table, in prose. Records are certainly a key aspect, but it’s possible to be indiscriminate and include excessive and trivial records, which I think is the case with the proposed changes. Additionally, the edits included grammatical errors (e.g. “two centuries scored by players of same team”).
I’ll disengage from the FLC for a week, until I’m back on a desktop. – Teratix ₵ 11:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dey subrata

edit
  • Necessity of paid subscription citation? Better remove refs. 41 and 46 already 40 and 45 showing the stats.
  • Repeated links of ground and places, link once, like that of Manuka Oval, Canberra or County Ground Taunton per MOS:LINK.
  • It says, "...may be repeated..". Here I don't see any requirement of linking in consecutive rows, like "Manuka Oval, Canberra" in 5 & 6, "County Ground, Taunton" in 8 & 9, "Rwanda Cricket Stadium" consecutively in four rows 12,13,14,15, same with "North Sydney Oval, Sydney" and "Pokhra Stadium" consecutively twice. Better to avoid such. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been three instances where a player has scored a century in the second innings of a WT20I match. You must include the other two centuries here and seeing the importance of Danielle Wyatt's centuries and both the centuries were scored in second innings and a record itself. Include it before (Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures during the second innings, .....)
  • Include Beth Mooney century, which is the only and first instance to lost match after a player scoring a century. Include after (– one of only two occurrences where a team was defeated despite a player scoring a century.)
  • (This match was also one of three occasions where two WT20I centuries were scored in the same match.) After including above information, this line become insignificant and will be included in the last line, before that include (This is the first (the line is about Beth mooney's century) out of three occassions where two WT20I centuries were scored in the same match. The second instance was when Prosscovia Alako and Rita Musamali of Uganda scored centuries against Mali, which is also the only instance where two centuries scored by players of same team in a match. The third instance was on 29 September 2019 when Beth Mooney scored her second century in the first innings and Chamari Atapattu scored her century in the second innings.)

That is the full picture of the records that should be in the lead. You can modify with better wordings. These are the concerns which need to be fixed. I will be happy to support once the issues fixed. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last three points remain unresolved. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dey subrata, I have included the fact that both of Wyatt's centuries were scored in the second innings. However, as there has been now been a fourth instance of two centuries being scored in a WT20I match, I believe that the lead now strikes a good a balance. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ianblair23 I think it was quite confusing for you to maintain what I have said in these three points and along with that new centuries in a recent match was scored, thus there were changes in records, that why I have included the lines myself accordingly. Check my recent edit and if you want to improve wording you can do, but I feel this should be the scenerio of the records. Please check, if need correction in wording, do it and inform me. Dey subrata (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why a previous reviewer making points when he already given his conclusion and reverting my edits before you could even go through what I've added or not and before you could even make a point. Listen dear editor, this is a record page and every record is a record. And those record gives you a clear picture about if any player scoring century in any innings winning or loosing match or if two players scoring from same side or not, as a reader and record keeper I would like to know. That does not make any disbalance in the article, rather it gives a clear picture. And by saying the table give all those information in my last three points, if we go by that logic there is no need of lead at all, as the table already giving you all information the lead is discusing. I would ask you to include those facts which must be described in the lead and the table follows the lead not the otherwise. I hope you address it. Dey subrata (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from MWright96
  • Perhaps mention that the ICC is cricket's world governing body for those who are not as well acquainted with cricket?
  • "Dottin's innings is the fastest WT20I century, reaching the milestone from 38 deliveries[12] and is the" - a comma is needed before the references in this section of text
  • "Healy's total of 148 not out is the highest individual score in a WT20I match[22][23] and the" - same query as above
  • "one of only two occurrences where a team was defeated despite a player scoring a century" - the word only is redundant here
  • The third footnote in the notes section will need to be referenced so that the information within it can be verified

That's all I found in the prose. The table itself has no issues. MWright96 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MWright96, thanks very much for the review. I have addressed each of your points above – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Vensatry
  • "The first century in a WT20I match was scored by Deandra Dottin of the West Indies, posting 112 not out against South Africa in the opening match of the 2010 ICC Women's World Twenty20 at Warner Park in Basseterre." Consider splitting the sentence as the construction looks a bit clumsy.
  • "The other was Harmanpreet Kaur of India posting 103 against New Zealand during the 2018 ICC Women's World Twenty20 coming in at number five." – Again, the sentence reads a bit odd here. Maybe something like "The other was when Harmanpreet Kaur of India posted 103 ..." might work.
  • 'aggressive' and 'triple figures' don't sound encyclopaedic.
  • "Alyssa Healy posted the highest innings score ... " –> Alyssa Healy posted the highest individual score ...
  • twice –> two times

—Vensatry (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianblair23: I've made a few minor changes to the lead; feel free to disregard those if you disagree. This looks mostly good and I'm happy to support the nomination. —Vensatry (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and for tweaks Vensatry. Much appreciated. – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – The references are all reliable. One formatting issue exists: refs 48 and 49 are the same and can be combined. The link-checker shows no issues, but I did see one verifiability issue in spot-checks of refs 35, 38, and 48: ref 38 doesn't mention Suzie Bates' player of the match award, unless I'm missing it (that's happened before with me trying to review cricket scorecards). The other references I reviewed did verify similar awards, so I don't know why this one doesn't, but another reference should be found to add to the existing one. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:30, 17 December 2019 (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_centuries_in_women%27s_Twenty20_International_cricket/archive1&oldid=935988976"