The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) add one |
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 4 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Fiona Apple/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers/archive3}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/MGMT discography/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NFL Draft/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NFL Draft/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Sydney Barnes/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Sydney Barnes/archive1}} |
Revision as of 21:11, 10 February 2013
- 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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [1].
List of songs recorded by Fiona Apple
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) and User:Ruby2010 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ruby2010 and I are nominating this list of recordings by Fiona Apple for featured list because we believe it meets criteria and closely resembles similar lists of this standard: Adele, Rihanna, etc. We believe the list is complete and we are happy to address any concerns that may arise during the course of this FLC process. Thanks so much for your time. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Aaron |
---|
Resolved comments by Aaron
— AARON • TALK 19:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - I don't see why this shouldn't be promoted. — AARON • TALK 22:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Looks pretty good to me, I just have a few points:.
Good work, in all. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: HMV's Poll of Polls. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- My main concern is the number of links, particularly in the third paragraph. Certain terms (like single, lead single, cover version, studio album, compilation album and soundtrack) are probably familiar to a reader that they needn't be linked to.
- I disagree. I think these links are important and it should be assumed people know the meaning of these terms. Also, neither reviewer above mentioned this concern. Please let me know if you feel strongly enough that you would not support the promotion of this list without specifically addressing this concern. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably not something I'd oppose over, it just seems like an awful lot of blue in paragraph three. It looks to me like about a third of the words in that paragraph are links. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there are an inordinate amount of links there. The first paragraph contains 17 links, the second para has 15, and the third has 18. I think we've maintained a good blue consistency. Also, I can't think which links we would trim out (all seem necessary to readers). Ruby 2010/2013 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that the number of links is consistent, I'm just concerned that there are a few too many of them – it looks like nearly a third of the words in the lead are links. But, as I've said, this isn't necessarily something that I'd oppose over. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there are an inordinate amount of links there. The first paragraph contains 17 links, the second para has 15, and the third has 18. I think we've maintained a good blue consistency. Also, I can't think which links we would trim out (all seem necessary to readers). Ruby 2010/2013 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably not something I'd oppose over, it just seems like an awful lot of blue in paragraph three. It looks to me like about a third of the words in that paragraph are links. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead originally said "Sony released" rather than "Sony produced". I can see that you changed it to avoid repetition of "released", but, when referring to a single, "produced" would suggest that Sony actually had a hand in its music production, which presumably wasn't the case. Is there another less ambiguous word that could be used instead? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed back to "released". I am not particularly bothered by the word redundancy, but also would not be opposed to a more generic term. Distributed? --Another Believer (Talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Status:
— Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Great work! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great use of citations, good structure, nice background info and introduction material, appreciate the usage of free-use media files. — Cirt (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments –
- What makes TwentyFourBit (refs 28, 38, and 42) a reliable source?
- This sounds good to me, but perhaps others would disagree. Also, I don't think the information taken from these sources is particularly controversial or questionable. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes The Round Table (ref 44) reliable? Giants2008 (Talk) 15:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know nothing about The Round Table except that, in this case, the two sources used to verify "Still I" are the only two I can find. Here is the site's "About Us" section with editor profiles. I assumed a less-than-ideal source was better than none at all. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's no truly reliable source for a fact, it's better to not include it at all. I'm sure reviewers will understand if a fact with reliable sourcing issues is removed, and will not hold it against the list on comprehensiveness grounds. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the source in question. The myspace reference remains at the moment, so I will keep the song in the table accordingly. If we believe myspace is not reliable, I can remove the song altogether. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's the performer's official page, I suppose it can be considered somewhat reliable like someone's Twitter account would be, although I don't like the use of such sources myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The song appears on the artist's official myspace page, which is why I could consider it reliable. I will leave the song in the table unless consensus says the source is considered unreliable. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's the performer's official page, I suppose it can be considered somewhat reliable like someone's Twitter account would be, although I don't like the use of such sources myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the source in question. The myspace reference remains at the moment, so I will keep the song in the table accordingly. If we believe myspace is not reliable, I can remove the song altogether. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's no truly reliable source for a fact, it's better to not include it at all. I'm sure reviewers will understand if a fact with reliable sourcing issues is removed, and will not hold it against the list on comprehensiveness grounds. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:16, 6 February 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.
- 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 21:11, 10 February 2013 [2].
List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers
- Nominator(s): Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because because I feel it meets the FL criteria and follows a similar design to current FLs such as List of Bermuda ODI cricketers. The list is also complete and as Hong Kong don't play at this level anymore, it is unlikely to change in the near future. It was previously a featured list just over four years ago and was on my radar early in 2012 to promote to FL, but time never permitted me to complete the nomination. Feedback most welcome! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "A ODI differs" should be An ODI -
Done
- "Hong Kong have never gained ODI status in their own right, but have been accorded ODI status twice on a temporary basis for participation in the Asia Cup, in which the matches played held ODI status." Think this could do with a reference.
Comment: - If only I could find one! Looked long and hard, with no luck thus far.
- Is the name sorting correctly? It appears to be a cross between first and last name
Comment: Pakistani players are generally sorted by first name, see here and per a discussion here. Nine of Hong Kong's squad alone in the 2008 Asian Cup were born in Pakistan.
NapHit (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Zia Khan 23:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment
- For the request for a reference for the part saying they were afforded temporary ODI status, as big as the internet is, I can find no source for that. I don't have either the 2007 or 2009 Wisden Almanack, so perhaps it is mentioned in there somewhere. For now I have included a note explaining why they were given temporary ODI status. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comments –
"playing two matches against Pakistan and India. , though struggling...". Period should be gone, and the comma should be moved to before the reference. How did three supporters miss something like this?Done - Yes, how did we miss that! That's what this process is for :)
"but have qualified for the 2014 World Cup Qualifier, where qualification...". Too much qualifying in this sentence.Done - Lost one
Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 24 January 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.
- 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 21:11, 10 February 2013 [3].
List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances)
As the reviewers were so kind to my last attempt, I thought I'd submit this third and final section of the complete list while my luck still holds (hopefully). It has the same structure as the previous one, and comments made at that FLC have been actioned at this list as well. And there's a few more pictures on this one. All constructive comments welcome... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- The position column should really sort by position, e.g. GK to FW, instead of the current alphabetic method NapHit (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could explain why it needs sorting in that order? I can't think of any particular reason why the reader sorting that column would expect the contents to appear in back-to-front order. Wouldn't they just be wanting all the players with each position to sort together? I'm not being awkward, and am quite happy to make the change if there's a good and generally accepted reason for it, but am reluctant to introduce 350+ extra template calls to an already large article if it's just personal taste.
- Well I thought it was the done thing, as the equivalent lists for Man Utd and Liverpool use this method. Also as the positions key list the positions in relation to their position on the pitch, so to me it would make sense to reflect this in the column. I think a few more opinions are needed on this, before, as you say, you introduce 350+ sort templates. NapHit (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could explain why it needs sorting in that order? I can't think of any particular reason why the reader sorting that column would expect the contents to appear in back-to-front order. Wouldn't they just be wanting all the players with each position to sort together? I'm not being awkward, and am quite happy to make the change if there's a good and generally accepted reason for it, but am reluctant to introduce 350+ extra template calls to an already large article if it's just personal taste.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a typically high quality nomination and my comments (where actually helpful) addressed nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Arsenikk
Excellent list and I'll be happy to support once the two issues are resolved. Arsenikk (talk) 11:31, 10 February 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.
- 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 21:11, 10 February 2013 [4].
MGMT discography
- Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because having extensively redeveloped the tables and prose, I feel that it meets the FLC criteria. Any criticism would be helpful if it improves the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Holiday56 (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support - Looks solid. Image could be better, but if its all we've got it's all we've got. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hopefully, I've addressed all of your comments satisfactorily. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments –
"The critical success of the EP and extensive touring brought the group to the attention of Columbia Records, which signed the group in 2006." Don't care for the redundant use of "group" here; try revising this to have only one usage.
- Done Removed the second "group". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similar issue in "The album reached number 38 on the US Billboard 200, and reached...". The second "reached" isn't needed at all in this sentence.Giants2008 (Talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Removed the second "reached". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:47, 15 January 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.
- 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 The Rambling Man 08:30, 7 February 2013 [5].
List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NFL Draft
- Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have done all that I have seen in the other "(School name) in the NFL Draft" pages, but with the North Carolina data. I've referenced all of the awards and super bowls, along with most of the points of contention I believe. Go Heels! Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by Ravendrop |
---|
*A Few Random Comments:
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose many comments despite the above early friendly supports, this is just a quick sample of comments in a five minute review...
That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
'Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Images look okay (no action required)
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*
|
- Neutral until a third opinion is given about names. Also, I do not appreciate being called "kid". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Third opinion: Taken literally, WP:REPEATLINK presently allows each target to be linked only once from within a table. However, the main argument against linking everything possible is to not take away the readers' attention from less numerous but equally or even more relevant links. I'm not seeing that problem in this article. So in my opinion, the convenience provided by these additional links slightly outweighs the aesthetic displeasure their presence causes. An unorthodox solution would be to color all but the first links black without actually delinking the teams. Or you could simply make the table sortable. Goodraise 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the list on prose and images. Still not wild about the linking, but the MOS doesn't proscribe any particular method for lists — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are all the players who have played in the NFL/AFL linked, or just the ones that currently have articles? Wizardman 18:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the players that have articles are linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NGRIDIRON they are almost certainly notable if they played at least one game and thus could be linked — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't have to be linked and personally a ton of red links are annoying to see on the page, so I'm going to pass on linking those without pages that have played games.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 12:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd much prefer the links added but it's no big deal. By the way Eric Blount needs to be linked, since he's not. That's basically why I'm pushing for the links, since they'll be filled in one day. Wizardman 03:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the players that have articles are linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [6].
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Sydney Barnes
Another cricket nomination to clog things up! This one is a bit further back in time than most of those coming through recently. Sydney Barnes is almost certainly the best "pace" bowler to have played Test cricket. He completed bamboozled Australian batsmen who otherwise dominated the English bowlers, and had he been a bit more courteous to the amateurs who ran the game, he would surely have played more Test cricket, and hold even more records. As it is, he took 24 five-wicket hauls in just 27 Test matches, and this list is long overdue. It's a while since I've nominated one of these lists, so there might be a few foibles, but as always, I invite all comments and advice. Harrias talk 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support Although the lead is very long, but well-written by Harrias. Zia Khan 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
—Vensatry (Ping me) 05:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Additional comments
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support as picky as I could be, all comments addressed with a modicum of actual enjoyment! This is what FLC should be about. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looked through it a couple of times and can see no glaring issues! Perhaps the mention of playing Minor Counties cricket could name the county he played for, but once again another fantastic list from Harrias! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"his average places him amongst the top-ten bowlers in Test cricket." "amongst" → "among"? There's also another similar usage later in the lead."After his recall to the England side, he played regularly until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, as was named by the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack as one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1910." "as" → "and".Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 23 January 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.
- 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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [7].
Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album
The Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album is an honor presented annually at the Latin Grammy Awards, a ceremony that recognizes excellence and promotes a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions of Latin recording artists in the United States and internationally. According to the category description guide for the 13th Latin Grammy Awards, the award is for vocal or instrumental merengue house, R&B, reggaeton, rap or and hip hop music albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded material. The award was first presented as the Best Rap/Hip-Hop Album until it received its current name, Best Urban Music Album, at the 5th Latin Grammy Awards ceremony in 2004. — Statυs (talk, contribs), — ΛΧΣ21 21:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
— DivaKnockouts (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Great job! — DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. Looks solid, table is nice too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a solid work, but I think you could still add another image to ilustrate the winners. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Quick comment – All caps in reference 6 need fixing.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 29 January 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.
- 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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [8].
List of international cricket centuries by Allan Border
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. This one closely follows format of similar lists. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Good work with the list! Zia Khan 05:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments –
Second "the" in "He holds the record for the consecutive appearances as a player in Tests."I see a couple of "till"s in the prose. Not sure whether this is considered formal enough in Australian/British English; if not, there's always "until".No need to capitalize "Tie" in the one note."There have been only two occasions where a Test match ending in a tie." "ending" → "ended".Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Tintin 18:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
For a cricket-aware reader it is misleading usage, because it came three months later in the same season.
This is also unconventional usage. Australia chased and won while the line gives the impression that he batted through the 50 overs
Redundant. See the previous line
He was the MoM
May not be a bad idea to add a note. The match did not have a MoM but Border was a 'player of the final' Tintin 17:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Looks good. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:51, 29 January 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.