Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Mohammad Yousuf/archive3
- 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 20:09, 11 July 2012 [1].
List of international cricket centuries by Mohammad Yousuf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): ZiaKhan 19:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. This is a well referenced and list based upon List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting and List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag. Please feel free to make your comments and suggestions. ZiaKhan 19:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Quick comments
|
- Support I couldn't find any outstanding issues, good work on the copyedit and the list in general. The only comment I have, and this is general in nature -- are we switching to the "superscript M" for the MoM? It looks a little odd (as most of the lists that I've seen use symbols). —SpacemanSpiff 11:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to ‡. ZiaKhan 13:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose quick ones
I'll leave it there, the lead is a little too lengthy and needs serious copyediting. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More comments, still opposing until you get a good copyeditor involved
|
Resolved comments from Vensatry |
---|
Comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)
I'm convinced with the prose but still there are a few issues:
|
- Support – I've switched to support now as the list meets FL standards. Great work by Bencherlite. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
Oppose the article currently has multiple prose and MOS issues. To list a few that jump out:
I've had another look through after the work by Bencherlite, and the prose is vastly improved. I still have some concerns in the table with the inclusion of the "match number" I still think this is not sufficiently explained in the key. A minor point is that the key lists "S.R." while the table has "S/R". Harrias talk 15:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Harrias talk 17:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NB I've been asked by the nominator to have a go at copy-editing the prose. I'm happy to give it a go but will be unable to do so, in reality, until Monday at the earliest, in case this makes any difference to the FLC directors looking at the nominations this weekend. BencherliteTalk 17:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. ZiaKhan 18:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very decent of you. ZiaKhan's prompt attempts to address all the comments thus far and your offer go a long way to allowing enough latitude in the timings for you to give the copyedit a bit of a go. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. ZiaKhan 18:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the prose and tried not to make it worse. What do people think now? I found the tense choice slightly awkward sometimes - he's still active to greater or lesser extent, and may or may not be retired from international cricket depending on what day of the week it is and whether the selectors have had tea or coffee for breakfast, so I've stuck with present rather than past tense in general. BencherliteTalk 23:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help. ZiaKhan 22:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Note 1: "The match was involuntarily forfeited under the Law 21 of the Laws of cricket." Remove first "the" and decapitalize "Laws"?Giants2008 (Talk) 20:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Done; I just checked the lead, not further down (my bad). I've also removed the "|link=off" from the date template as it's no longer needed, and fixed a couple of the sortorder numbers. BencherliteTalk 20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the disclaimer that I helped with the prose, as noted. Everything else now looks FL-worthy. BencherliteTalk 23:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Bencherlite. I expect support from the FL directors, SpacemanSpiff and Harrias as the concerns have been addressed. ZiaKhan 17:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The directors, myself included, don't tend to support too many lists since we're the ones who have to close FLCs, and there's a conflict if we support and promote at the same time. Also, don't automatically assume that people must support if their concerns are addressed, You have to wait for them to declare support, as Harrias did, and there's no obligation for any reviewer to support at any time. It's their choice. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your advice. Keep me giuding. Thank you once again. ZiaKhan 20:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- "as one of the finest middle order batsmen Pakistan has produced.." I think this should be in quotation marks as you are quoting what someone else has said. NapHit (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded to give more of a sense of the positives and negatives from that article without directly quoting. BencherliteTalk 11:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.