Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cricketers who have scored centuries in each innings of a Test match/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 SchroCat 10:40, 13 March 2014 [1].

List of cricketers who have scored centuries in each innings of a Test match

Featured list candidates/List of cricketers who have scored centuries in each innings of a Test match/archive1

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(Ping) 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that how such an important list has not been created before. I believe it meets the criteria and look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(Ping) 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"T2" has two entries in the key. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and thanks —Vensatry _(Ping) 06:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

"Players from teams that are full members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) have scored centuries in each innings with the exception of Bangladesh" => "Players from all teams that are full members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) have scored centuries in each innings with the exception of Bangladesh"

Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 07:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"was entered into the record books as "Most runs scored by a player in a Test match (Male)"" - I don't like the Easter Egg link on "record books", also why the need to refer to "record books" at all? Why not just put "his combined tally [...] set a record for the highest aggregate score achieved by a player in a Test match"......?

Removed the pipe link. Isn't a mention of "Guinness Records" noteworthy as it caters to a wide range of audience rather than cricket enthusiasts alone. —Vensatry _(Ping) 07:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes a certain amount of sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"His compatriot Michael Vaughan has the least aggregate" => "His compatriot Michael Vaughan has the lowest aggregate"

Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 07:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Lawrence Rowe of West Indies and Yasir Hameed of Pakistan are the only debutants to accomplish this feat" => "Lawrence Rowe of West Indies and Yasir Hameed of Pakistan are the only debutants to score centuries in both innings of a Test". As it stands "this feat" sounds like it's referring to the bit in the previous sentence, which it isn't.

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 07:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~A comma is needed after "the longest version of the game" in the lead.~~
~~In the table, Warren Bardsley's first century score isn't sorting in the right order.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 02:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Hope I've fixed them —Vensatry _(Ping) 09:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). (1) Paragraphs in lede look sort of uneven in size. Consider splitting the 2nd paragraph in two. (2) Notes section: notes "c" and "e" could use citations at the end of those sentences to assist the reader to find sources for that info. (3) Image review: All images check out okay. Y. (4) Overall it's pretty good, address those recommendations and I'd feel ready to support at that point in time. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cirt: I think I've addressed each of them. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry _(Ping) 10:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for the polite, prompt, and punctual responses to my comments, above. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd like to see an aggregate column as this is mentioned a couple of times in the lead.
- Is it really needed? I don't see either cricinfo or cricketarchive reporting it. Besides, except for a few players that wouldn't be worth mentioning. —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you have mentioned it a few times in the lead so it's relevant, no? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've mentioned it only twice – Highest and lowest. The highest is an all-time record, and made it to the Guinness books. Others don't seem significant enough to make a mention. —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is each innings denoted with a T, i.e. T1 and T2? Why not 1st innings and 2nd innings?
- That would confuse the readers as Test matches have a maximum of four innings played. —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really, and besides, wouldn't that imply that the title of this list is confusing? Are there cricketers who have scored in four innings?! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be misleading again since from the match's point of view, we don't know in which of the two innings he made centuries! —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - What I mean is the title of the list says "in each innings of a Test match" so that'd be up to four centuries in a match then?! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I had this doubt whether to use "each" or "both" after creating this article. You want me to move the page now? —Vensatry _(Ping) 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"completes 100 runs in" wouldn't it be 100 or more?
- I think both are right. Isn't it? —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I mean is that it's not exactly 100 runs, it's "100 runs or more"... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done as suggested —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"on both the occasions while scoring centuries" probably could just say "in both innings", as it's clear you're talking about double centurions.
- Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You note the nationality of some but not all centurions, seems anomalous.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"... a total of 73 players ..." the table shows 74 players?
- Rephrased since my original statement was wrong —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think they are 74 and 61. Are they? —Zia Khan 22:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm counting 60 and 74?! —Zia Khan 06:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I've used "Since then", so ignore Bardsley —Vensatry _(Ping) 06:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Most runs scored by a player in a Test match (Male)" I don't known the M should be in capital????
- It has to be lowercase. Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Australia's David Warner...." I think Australian would be more appropriate here. —Zia Khan 15:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes no difference —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why T1 and T2, and not C1 and C2?
- It's just a notation used for the items used in the table. I don't think we have any specific guideline on deciding key notations. —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add a note about table sorting.
- Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with Warner's entry.
- Fixed —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1st century should sort secondarily to the 2nd or vice versa.

—Zia Khan 15:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already used a secondary sort based on dates for both columns. —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort by date and then look at the No. column! Also there is a double entry in the No. column. —Zia Khan 22:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and thanks —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahara4u: I think I've addressed your concerns. Let me know if there are any further issues. —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I see no major issues with the list. Aureez (Talk) 11:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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