Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of unusual dismissals in international cricket/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 Crisco 1492 06:31, 13 May 2015 [1].

List of unusual dismissals in international cricket

Featured list candidates/List of unusual dismissals in international cricket/archive1

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 13:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite an interesting list, IMO. Look forward to your comments and suggestions —Vensatry _(ping) 13:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias ^talk

Now that you've removed hit wicket from the former list, you only list nine of the ten methods of dismissal, which seems a little odd.
- I don't seem to quite understand your point. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the first paragraph, there is a list of "common" and "unusual" dismissals. The only one not mentioned is hit wicket. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, got it! —Vensatry _(ping) 19:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about "where the bowler is denied any credit". The bowler doesn't get credit for a run out either, but that isn't an unusual dismissal.
- Pardon me, but I haven't mentioned anywhere in the article that bowlers don't get credit only for these kinda dismissals. —Vensatry _(ping)
  - You have, at the end of the first paragraph. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly, but I'm not very specific here. You see, I've not mentioned that bowlers don't get credit only for unusual dismissals. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I accept that, but it could easily be inferred that it is the case, and even if not, it just seems an unnecessary thing to mention, at least in that location. Harrias ^talk 19:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Added a FN for clarification —Vensatry _(ping) 13:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"England batsman Leonard Hutton became the first player.." Replace "became" with "was".
- Done —Vensatry _(ping) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"in August 1951. between.." Missing a capital letter.
- Done —Vensatry _(ping) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are placing unusual in speech-marks in the article, should you do the same in the title of the article?
- Agree. Removed —Vensatry _(ping) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Michael Vaughan is the most recent cricketer to be dismissed in this fashion, .." Following on from the previous sentence, this construction makes it seem like Vaughan retired out, so the second half of the sentence then confuses the reader. Perhaps change to ".. to be dismissed in an unusual fashion, .."
- Good catch. Done —Vensatry _(ping) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"India's Mohinder Amarnath was the first player to be given out handled the ball, against Australia in February 1986." This needs clarification to state that it was the first occasion in ODIs.
- Rephrased —Vensatry _(ping) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"to be dismissed in both ways." I think this could do with a bit more work to clarify that he is the only player to have been dismissed in two different "unusual" methods.
- Done —Vensatry _(ping) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the most common way of an unusual dismissal" "way" doesn't seem like encyclopaedic language in this usage.
- Replaced with "method" —Vensatry _(ping) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "player", "team" and "opposition" columns could do with widening so that they don't wrap over two lines. Harrias ^talk 09:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjusted —Vensatry _(ping) 13:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which we decided this isn't a 3b violation

* I quite like this list, but I'm concerned that it might be a 3b violation, duplicating the lists already present at Obstructing the field and Handled the ball, and information from Retired out. Harrias ^talk 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I had this in mind while creating the list. While I'm more inclined to your opinion now, I must also say that both the articles Obstructing the field and Handled the ball are very well developed (The latter being a GA). As for "Retired out", I don't think there is much scope to expand the article beyond this point. I understand your issue of overlapping here, but in that case we should not have sub-pages of List of cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut in the FL category no? I'd like to have the opinion of other reviewers as the 3(b) criteria doesn't seem quite clear at least to me. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the issue isn't completely clear, which is why I've merely commented, rather than opposed. Might be worth getting the opinion of one or more of the FLC officials? (@Giants2008, Crisco 1492, and SchroCat:) Harrias ^talk 10:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tend to throw my hands up in the air when it comes to the more in-depth cricket things, so I'll defer to the other delegates (if either of them are familiar with the field). I do note that "unusual dismissals" gave me pause when I read the title of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Crisco 1492: We are only concerned about the possible violation of 3(b) criterion. —Vensatry _(ping) 13:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know, but my knowledge of cricket isn't enough to say whether this would work better by having each of the types of "unusual" dismissals listed in their own article (easily manageable), or all of these compiled in one list (as here). The descriptor "unusual" is the key aspect here; do we have a source which makes groupings like this? If there are one or more RSes which do, I'd be inclined to allowing this. If this is our own classification, then I would not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Fortunately we have sources which makes such classifications: [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6]. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with Crisco that as long as we aren't arbitrarily deciding what dismissals are "unusual", there is a sufficient basis for a list that is comprehensive enough for FL. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep. Not a 3B violation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ nice work. Harrias ^talk 07:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck my support (hopefully temporarily) due to the issue raised by the IP editor below. I can't see any justification not to include unusual dismissals in women's international cricket in this list. Harrias ^talk 17:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why isn't there a column for actual reason of dismissal. Nergaal (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your point here. You want me to have a "Key" for the items listed in the table? —Vensatry _(ping) 11:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it is covered in the mode column. Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead counts hit wicket among the "much rarer" dismissals, but it isn't considered "unusual", and the bowler does get credit. It's also much more common than the unusual dismissals. —Raven42 (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"These are regarded as "unusual" ways of dismissals in cricket" - by whom? Is there a reliable source that says that these methods of dismissal are widely considered/referred to as "unusual"?
"the bowler is denied of any credit" - should just be "denied any credit"
Second sentence of second paragraph doesn't start with a capital letter
"six different players were dismissed for "handled the ball"" => "six different players were dismissed for handling the ball"
"the most common way of an "unusual" dismissal" => "the most common form of "unusual" dismissal"
"the first player to be dismissed in both the ways" - "the first player to be dismissed in both ways"
"In international women's cricket, the only instance of a usual dismissal" - should say unusual
Also, as mentioned above, the lead indicates that there are five "unusual" forms of dismissal, but hit wicket is not included in the list. Either players who were out hit wicket should be included, or else it shouldn't be considered an "unusual" form of dismissal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Raven42: @ChrisTheDude: Good catch! I do agree that hit wicket is a rare dismissal, but unlike others here the bowler is credited with a wicket. I think this fairly distinguishes it from other "unusual modes". Also, their frequency is quite high when compared to other "unusual forms". There have been 154 and 62 occasions in Test and ODIs respectively. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue is that the lead explicitly states that there are five "unusual" dismissals but then only four are used in the article. The lead needs a statement as to why only four of the five are used (and to be honest I think it would need to be something more concrete than just "hit wicket hasn't been included because there have been a lot of them". Does that make sense........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed hit wicket from the lead. According to Wisden Dictionary of Cricket and The Extraordinary Book of SA Cricket, hit wicket is not counted among the unusual dismissals. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should I remove retired out from the list? —Vensatry _(ping) 10:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias, ChrisTheDude, and Raven42: Any update yet? —Vensatry _(ping) 13:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks OK to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Editor removed all references to women's international cricket from an article supposedly about "international cricket", obviously has problems. THis is why women are driven away from Wikipedia, don't marginalise women's sport. 58.7.156.156 (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I very well know that women play cricket at all levels – Tests, ODIs and T20Is. Technically speaking, I see a point to include women's cricket stats, after all this list talks about international cricket. But please tell me do we include women's cricket in all articles/lists associated with international cricket. For instance, why is Tendulkar regarded as the first player on the planet to score an ODI double-century when Belinda Clark did that many years ago. Also why is Sri Lanka credited with scoring the highest team total (443) in ODIs when the New Zealand women's cricket team made 455 way back in 1997? If your answer is good enough to convince me, I'll more than happy to include women's cricket stats here. Above all, you should stop campaigning against me. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think in many cases there is sufficient information on women's cricket that we can have separate articles. However, in this case, with just one unusual dismissal in women's international cricket, it does not warrant its own article, and therefore should be included in this one. Harrias ^talk 07:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Harrias. There's no need for us to have two separate lists for unusual dismissals since there is only 1 record from women's international cricket. Also, the fact that other articles and lists don't include women's cricket isn't a convincing reason. If the scope given by the title and lead of the article don't exclude women's cricket, there's no reason it should be excluded. If that means that other articles need to be fixed (either by clarifying scope or adding women's cricket), then so be it. Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Added —Vensatry _(ping) 11:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Kaldari and Harrias: Any update yet? —Vensatry _(ping) 07:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Your new edits look good to me. I can't find any other issues with the list. Kaldari (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just a heads up that this is currently an orphaned article/list. --Lightlowemon (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The kid has now been adopted by four of its relatives. —Vensatry _(ping) 12:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Support - Looks pretty good to me, although it should probably be consistent about whether the refs are in a separate column or not. Kaldari (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kaldari: Done —Vensatry _(ping) 18:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, is the current version of the list acceptable to you? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, yup, looks good to me now. Harrias ^talk 06:22, 13 May 2015 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 13 May 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.