Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of women's international cricket hat-tricks/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 02:13, 22 April 2015 [1].

List of women's international cricket hat-tricks edit

List of women's international cricket hat-tricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 21:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another cricket list! This one is based upon the already featured and subtly different List of Test cricket hat-tricks and List of One Day International cricket hat-tricks. As always, all thoughts, comments and otherwise are welcome!

Note: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tied Twenty20 Internationals/archive1 is still open, but all the comments made there have been resolved, and it has received significant support. Harrias talk 21:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "dismissing three different batsmen" isn't accurate, is it? He can dismiss batsmen A and B with the last two balls of one match, then dismiss A with the first ball of the next match he plays. Wouldn't that be a hat-trick? The three main tables should be in different second-level sections.—indopug (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - You have used fixed width columns, that will not be helpful to users with smaller screens. And why do you need bullet points for the dismissed batsmen? They just look like unnecessary clutter to me. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fixed widths are so that the columns in all three tables line up, something that people have requested at previous FLCs. If the screen is smaller, they automatically get smaller, rather than force a scroll, so I don't think it should be a problem. The bullet points are simply from convention; they are in both the the lists mentioned above, but also in all of the five-wicket haul lists, such as List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Dale Steyn. That said, I have no particular objection to removing them, but it should probably follow that all of the other similarly formatted lists should follow suit. Harrias talk 12:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
  • "three wickets on consecutive deliveries" - should this be "three wickets in consecutive deliveries/three wickets off consecutive deliveries"?
  • " It is a relatively rare feat ... " is a POV unless sourced
    • Not at all, it is cited that there have only been twenty hat-tricks in the whole of the history of women's cricket, demonstrating the rarity. Harrias talk 07:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I totally disagree as the claim looks contentious. —Vensatry (ping) 12:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still disagree, it being a statistical, rather than subjective claim, but I have found a reference nevertheless. Harrias talk 12:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Test, ODI and T20Is appropriately
  • "An unassisted wicket is one in which no fielder was directly involved; the batsman was either bowled, or leg before wicket." - What about Caught and bowled then?
    • No, that bizarrely counts as assisted! (Don't ask me, I don't decide these things...) Harrias talk 07:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a link to unassisted wicket? Also the definition is currently unsourced. —Vensatry (ping) 12:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that unassisted wicket does not appear to be a widely used term (the leagues around here use it as a stat, and I assumed it was more commonly known), I've changed the wording slightly. Harrias talk 12:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, I don't think it's a widely used term (not because I'm hearing it for the first time though). —Vensatry (ping) 13:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During that match ... becoming the first player of either gender to score a century and take ten wickets in a Test match" - While this may not be particularly relevant to the topic, I'm also unsure how notable it's to have a mention in the lead. Further, the fact is sourced to "Cricket Country".
    • I've left it in for the moment as it provides a bit of context to the event, but I wouldn't overly object to removing it. Harrias talk 12:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't this be added as a FN? —Vensatry (ping) 13:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, it does seem superfluous to this article. I've removed it completely. Harrias talk 13:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the equivalent competition for Twenty20 cricket" -> the equivalent competition for Women's Twenty20 International
  • "and similarly no venue has hosted more than one occurrence." - Doesn't look professional to me. Needs to be rephrased
    • Tweaked for clarification. Harrias talk 07:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done —Vensatry (ping) 12:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • What particularly don't you like about this? Harrias talk 12:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The phrase "hosted more than one occurrence" sounds a little absurd to me. (Though I must admit that "I ain't a native English speaker") —Vensatry (ping) 13:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've removed the redundancy, how does it look now? Harrias talk 13:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think an article should precede "English" in "English and Pakistani bowlers ..."
    • I completely disagree. Harrias talk 07:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • With an article in place, more emphasis can be laid on the nationalities? What do you think? —Vensatry (ping) 12:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really understand how you would like it changed; what specific wording would you like? Harrias talk 12:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The usage of the before English. It's only a suggestion as I'm not very sure about its usage in this context. —Vensatry (ping) 13:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that would change the meaning, rather than referring to a group of people, it would make it specific people. Both are technically true, but I think the way it is works better in the English language. Harrias talk 13:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link the publisher names at least once in refs.

—Vensatry (ping) 18:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "has occurred fewer than twenty times in the history of women's international cricket" why not say exactly how many times it's happened?
  • "first instance happened" a bit passive, why not "the first hat-trick was taken"?
  • Image caption is a complete sentence so requires a full stop.
  • I would add the nationalities of the two additional Test hat-trick takers.
  • "Mir's hat-trick in 2015 similarly..." could be a little confusing as the previous sentence talks about Test hat-tricks, perhaps re-clarify that Mir took a T20I hat-trick.
  • "to have happened during" again, a little flimsy, so try "to have been taken in"
  • " Women's World Twenty20" in the key links to the ICC World Twenty20 tournament where women's cricket is not discussed.
  • Headings: you have Test cricket, One Day Internationals, Twenty20 Internationals. For consistency, shouldn't it just be Tests?
    • All the above are changed as suggested. Harrias talk 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last clause of last sentence is a little bit "meh", not really sure how much it adds to the quality of the lead.
    • It seemed interesting when I wrote it, but I must admit that reading it back it doesn't seem so interesting. I'll leave it for the moment and consider it! Harrias talk 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another curiosity, is it worth including the final bowling figures?
    • I don't think so, the list should be about the specific instance of the hat-trick rather than the bowler's performance I think. Harrias talk 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure Julie Harris is the one you really mean to link.
    • Apparently not! Directed this correctly now. Harrias talk 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it's a good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just out of curiosity, were any of the hat-tricks taken over consecutive overs, or where they all within a single over?
    • I'm not sure; I'll have a look, might be worth adding as a note do you think? Harrias talk 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not that important, but it is of interest (to me, at least!) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Had a look, and found that three of them (one from each format) was split across two overs (in one case, the 10th and 20th overs of a T20). I've added a bit in the table, but I don't know if it is worth mentioning at all in the lead? Harrias talk 14:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I don't think a lead mention is entirely necessary, but thanks for digging up the facts, which turned out to be quite interesting! I now support this candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I really can't find a single thing wrong with this. I'm impressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2015 (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_women%27s_international_cricket_hat-tricks/archive1&oldid=1138487862"