Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records/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 Dabomb87 22:39, 14 April 2010 [1].

List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records

List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured list candidates/List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records/archive1

This article is based on the List of Test cricket records article. It was at WP:PR for some time (I closed the peer review today, after fixing the issues raised there). Since this is somewhat different from most of the existing cricket lists, your suggestions and comments would be very valuable on making this a featured list. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I believe the Fastest Test centuries/half-centuries/double centuris sections may be completely unverifiable. You are providing the strike rate for the runs scored not the half-century/century. For example Jayasuriya may have hit his first hundred runs with a strike rate of 300.00 (i.e. faster) but then taken a very long time to get the other 57 runs (e.g. strike rate 20.00) which would overall drags his strike rate for 157 runs. However, he still scored the faster century (first 100 runs). This example is clearly fictional but is useful to indicate the problem within a context. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Would you suggest removing those three tables (fastest scores are not that important in Test cricket anyway) then? There is a separate page at Cricinfo (http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/210170.html) for fastest Test centuries, but it's not possible to find something like that for each team, so I have used the search engine here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ditch those sections (especially half/double centuries). Ideally it would be nice to have fastest century recoreds by balls faced/minute for Sri Lanka in that style (here's a couple more i.e. the 2006 top 10) but I realise it might be difficult to find and my quick google came up with nothing (It seems feasible for ODIs however). If you wanted a fastest section I suppose you could do highest strike rate with a qualifier e.g. 50 runs [2]. Up to you but, in my opinion, the current sections must go as they are misleading. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed those three sections. Keeping them like "fastest 50+ individual scores" is pointless IMO; what matters are the actual records regarding the centuries themselves. Otherwise the article would become just a collection of statistics, I think. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 16:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. I do think a fastest 100 would be a useful record to add if it could be found but I understand the complexities involved and have struck my oppose. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I must admit that I am against these sorts of lists on Wikipedia. Lists of Test centuries, five-wickets hauls etc are pretty stable, they are unlikely to change that much too quickly. Whereas almost every list on this page could change two or three times in a month or so. It is unlikely to I'll grant you, but it could; at which stage it becomes very hard to keep it up to date, and is possibly breaking WP:FL? criteria 6 for stability. Besides that, I feel it is a bombardment of information without much analysis and explanation at times, and it better left on Cricinfo and to a lesser extent, CricketArchive. I'm not going to oppose the list, because I feel you've done a good job on it, but I'm afraid in this case I can't support it either, unless you can convince me that it is worthy of inclusion in it's current form. Possibly, maybe, a split version would be more suitable, batting records one one page, bowling on another etc. I'm not sure. Harrias (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I did consider the stability issue before starting work on this article, and it seemed pretty ok to me. Looking at their recent matches, Sri Lanka plays an average of less than 10 Tests per year. Most of their Test tournaments are 2 or 3 match tournaments, and they have never played more than a 5-match tournament to the best of my knowledge. It's almost always one tournament per season, which means about three tournaments per year. Also, the only records that will need to be updated regularly are the career runs and wickets, batting and bowling averages, and dismissals. The other records are not very likely to change in every match, so updating the article after every tournament should be an easy enough job. As I said, this is based on the List of Test cricket records, which went through a FLRC last year, so I didn't really think length would be an issue. If more reviewers agree that the article's stability and size may be problems though, I will withdraw the nom since they are major concerns that I can't really do much about. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lists I can be stable yet dynamic. For example Premier League Player of the Month changes, well, monthly. However, like TRM made me do for that list, will you promise to keep an eye on new Sri Lanken records in the future and update this accordingly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I will have to do that. But as I said, I don't expect the updating to be that hard. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

1. Narrowest win margin by wickets: Winning by 5 wickets I think is a considerable win. Overall test record table in Cricinfo limit it to victory by 3 wkts or less. Consider trimming.
   • True enough that it is not a very narrow margin, but when it comes to Sri Lankan records these are the narrowest margins they have. I think we should stick to the top five records because of this, and also to keep it consistent with the rest of the article.
2. Best career average bowling: Qualification needed. Best--Chanaka L (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
   • Stupid mistake. Added now. Thanks for the comments and sorry for the late reply; I couldn't work on this for a few days. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – With TRM's comments resolved, this looks to meet FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Very detailed and time consuming list. Well done. —Aaroncrick (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.