Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Cricket World Cup centuries/archive1

• "the" is needed before the first mention of the International Cricket Council.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Try not to start a sentence with a numeral, like in "24 centuries were scored in the 2011 World Cup". You could spell the number out instead, though, and that would be okay.
  • Rephrased —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Adam Gilchrist holds the record the highest score in the finals...". Needs "for" after "record".
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Tendulkar photo caption needs "in" after "appeared".
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't think the first two words of the List of centuries section heading serve any purpose.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not a fan of photo galleries in featured work, but that might just be my opinion. If it stays, the Viv Richard caption could use "in" at the end, like the Tendulkar caption.
  • Agreed, but for a list containing 127 entries images could add some flavour. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 2: Should "his" be added before "ODI debut."?
  • I don't think that's necessary, since the sentence is pretty straight forward. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Lastly, I urge you to reconsider the usage of the Taneja book. I've seen Gyan Publishing books that "borrowed" our writing without attribution to Wikipedia, and the first paragraph on the Cricket World Cup looks very similar to writing in our article. This problem was noted here as well. I don't want to give potential copyright violaters any credit by seeing citations to their work in featured content. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced, and thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you provide a reference for the lead image's caption?
  • Rephrased since there was misinterpretation. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you really need "the sport of" in the 1st sentence? The sentence also needs a reference.
  • Nothing wrong in having that since there are people in some parts of the world who are not even aware of it's existence. Ref added —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Too many "players" in the 1st para, you may use "batsmen" instead.
  • I prefer not to use batsmen as "Players" is more generic. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Link Australia and India at first use.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• made → scored
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Following that, the record was broken by Viv Richards (181), Gary Kirsten (188 not out) and Sourav Ganguly (183) in the 1987, 1996 and 1999 editions respectively." → You mean that Ganguly's score of 183 was greater then Kirsten's 189? I think the sentence should be finished at Kirstan's score.
  • I was talking about the Kapil Dev record so it was correct. Anyways I've removed. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 1987, 1996 and 1999 etc. You may link the years to the corresponding tournaments where necessary.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are missing 1992!? Zia Khan 20:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "six centuries have been scored in the finals" → not supported by the current reference.And "of which five resulted in victories." is unreferenced.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• New Zealand's, Australia's, Sri Lanka's etc. You may use something like "Indian batsman" or "Sri Lankan cricketer" etc.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Last sentence is unreferenced.

Zia Khan 22:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref. is not needed for lede if it's verifiable in the table. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments –

• The symbols are not in the order as they are in the Key.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a statement to explain the sorting of the table.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• IMO, second and third heading rows are useless, at least the second one which goes up and down when click on the main header.
  • Wouldn't it be helpful for navigation? I've removed the second header, as it messes up sorting. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There no need of this. The main header is sufficient because this is a simple list to understand. Zia Khan 12:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A table consisting of 127 entries looks simple? I need a second opinion on this. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a difference between simplicity and lengthiness. I mean this list is simple to understand. You may list every World Cup centuries separately. Zia Khan 21:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keen to know the difference between "lengthiness and simplicity". A table with 1651 cells is definitely complex IMO. The second header makes navigation easier for people who don't follow cricket, as these lists are not meant for cricket enthusiasts alone. Also there is no such rule that lengthier tables shouldn't have more than one header. If there exists such a guideline, I'd be happy to remove it. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Have a look at List of India Twenty20 International cricketers, which definitely has less number of cells, but the header is more complicated there. The second header doesn't help the readers at all, this is only helpful for the last 10-12 entries (if that's enough then you need to have 8-10 headers for 127 enrties). I don't think there exist any guidelines for having second and third headers etc. Zia Khan 10:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add a little further, I've already said this was based upon List of centuries in women's Test cricket, an existing FL which uses three headers for 96 entries. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many things have changed since that FL. Anyways, I'll wait for a third persons opinion. Zia Khan 20:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many things? what exactly do you mean. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for Harrias as well. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment on this issue by the nominator. If I'm reading this correctly, the question concerns the extra header at the bottom of the list. I've seen much longer lists without an extra heading, but have also seen shorter lists with one. I probably wouldn't put an extra heading there myself, but it's not something that stood out to me when I reviewed it. There aren't any guidelines, as has already been said, so I'm comfortable following the nominator's style. Others are free to disagree, of course. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a sole criteria that is preventing this list to becoming a FL? If so, I'd be happy to change. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you align the contents of table to left instead of center (at least Team, Opposition and Venue columns) as they are looking odd. Zia Khan 20:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The score column would look odd not the venue oppostion and team. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• At least two entries are wrong in the "Date" column. Check the rest of the table too. Zia Khan 12:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Add comma after "In 1992"
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe you can add a key for centuries scored in the finals.
  • Done. Nice idea —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see any need for an extra header. f the list is too big, then it should be split into two lists: "World Cup centuries (1975-1999)" and "World Cup centuries (2003-2011)"
  • Done. Splitting the list would be a very bad idea as sorting/comparison of scores would become impossible. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Feroz Shah Kotla Ground" ---> "Feroz Shah Kotla"
  • That would be wrong as the ground was named after the fort. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Mumbai was called Bombay before 1995.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Chennai was called Madras before 1996.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Players from countries that have permanent ODI status" is misleading because West Indies is not a country. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]