Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Graeme Swann/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 08:12, 3 August 2015 [1].
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Graeme Swann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Sahara4u, Harrias talk 08:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Swann is England's best spin bowler of the modern era. Were it not for his childish antics when he was originally called up by England that meant he was dropped and ignored by the coach at the time, he may have set a number of records. As it was, he managed a fair bit in his somewhat shortened career until a combination of injuries and Australians forced his retirement. Following the style set by plenty of similar lists before, this list summarises his five-wicket hauls. The list was initially created by Sahara4u, and I recently went through and tidied up the prose and the table to bring it up to what I hope are FL standards. As usual, all comments, improvements and thoughts are welcome! Harrias talk 08:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
"17 in Tests and one in ODIs" – see WP:NUMNOTES.- "The English cricket journalist Scyld Berry" – I don't know if "the" is needed.
- It very much is in British English (and to be honest, any "professional standard" of English). Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes. I didn't notice that the subject is British. My bad! -- Frankie talk 20:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "He did not claim any five-wicket haults in T20I cricket; his best bowling figures in the format were three wickets for 13 runs" – again, see NUMNOTES.
- In this case I disagree. The number of wickets and runs are not comparable quantities really. I'm not against changing if you really insist, but I don't think the MOS requires it. Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOSTRIKE says "do not use unpronounceable symbols". I am not sure if asterisks are one of them; it does not look appealing to me. Instead, you could use a hashtag or something.
- Changed it to § ({{Section-sign}}). Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 3: ESPNcricinfo and ESPN should be de-linked and instead, they could be linked to ref. 1 as you have linked on first occurrences.
Pretty nice list. -- Frankie talk 10:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – See above. -- Frankie talk 11:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Other than these comments, the list looks in good shape. NapHit (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Great work! NapHit (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 17:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
—Vensatry (ping) 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – Nice work —Vensatry (ping) 17:45, 27 July 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. – SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 3 August 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.