Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Gary Kirsten/archive1
- 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 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of international cricket centuries by Gary Kirsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
Just when you thought it was safe to return to FLC, along comes another international cricket centuries list. Vensatry (talk · contribs) created the basic article, I tidied it up a bit.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Chris, for considering me as a co-nom. Would be glad to work with you. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chamal T•C 12:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
A few things worth mentioning in the article:
|
- Support Looks good. BTW, I thought I had provided sources along with my comments; sorry about that. Looks like you didn't have a problem anyway. Chamal T•C 12:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support - I have absolutely no knowledge of cricket other than a basic overview, but seeing as ChrisTheDude is helping 2001 NFL Draft (a topic he knows nothing about) avoid demotion I feel like I should give some input here. The prose quality is excellent, and very readable. The tables are easy to read (flags are a nice touch there) and all sorting functions work, and the key is very clear. I can't really see any issues here that violate criteria. Overall, this is very good list so great work here. Toa Nidhiki05 02:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 15:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments – I think the slash in "1996/97 series" is better off as an en dash for purposes of following the MoS. That's about all I saw, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.