Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium

Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium/archive1

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my obsession towards cricket lists, I'd like to nominate this for FLC. I've modeled this based on the existing FLs. This is my first FLC in three months, so I'd like to have a thorough review. Thanks, —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

~~"India's Gundappa Viswanath and Mohammed Azharuddin had scored the most centuries at the venue with three each." "had" → "have"?~~
~~"As of February 2016, 35 Test centuries have been scored at the stadium." The list and lead photo caption both give a figure of 32 centuries.~~
~~In the Azharuddin photo caption, "had" can be removed.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Fixed all. Thanks —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Really poorly written article with non reliable sources. 213.205.251.56 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote of a vandal only IP which has been blocked. Cowlibob (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FLC director and delegates: The page has been constantly vandalised by a sock. —Vensatry _(Talk) 10:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page, or the list? This page has been edited by an anonymous editor four times, most of that edit warring within a short period of time. Disruptive, but not at "protect the nomination" levels — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this page. Just wanted to leave a note - it's a vandal (possibly a sock). —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Feel free to revert the vandal IP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: - The edits are becoming very disruptive. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Some facts in the lead need "As of".
"The record for the highest score by an overseas player" --> "The record for the highest ODI score by an overseas player"
"is the highest score by a batsman at this ground" --> "is the highest ODI score by a batsman at this ground"

Good work! Bharatiya 29 14:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all. Thanks! —Vensatry _(Talk) 16:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bharatiya 29 15:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not keen on that short "capacity" sentence.
- Removed. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could link West Indian cricket team in India in 1958–59.
- Done —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Faoud Bacchus' (of West Indies) " is an odd construct, particularly with that apostrophe being interrupted by the parenthetical note.
- Done —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the total of 32 centuries referenced explicitly anywhere? Put it in the lead prose as well as the table caption.
- Added one for the caption. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"during the Nehru Cup (1989)" - would be better as "during the 1989 Nehru Cup".
- That would imply that the tournament was organised periodically. AFAIK, it (that year's ) was the only such tournament. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why is the year in the title of the article? Sounds like it needs to be moved, it's an unnecessary disambiguator. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not very sure about the title, but adjusted the 'year' in the lead. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should be noted that Result is relevant to the team of the century scorer.
- Done —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Shahid Afridi's 45-ball century " table says 46. Is this "fastest" claim referenced anywhere?
- Yes. He reached the milestone in the 45th delivery. This is covered in the ref. in the lead. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Understood. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't think it should be referred to as 'The' Green Park Stadium, simply Green Park Stadium should suffice.
- In general, we use 'the' before the names of establishments, where a part of the noun denotes the kind of it (establishment). That said, I'm not sure about the common name of the article. Although our article retains 'Stadium' as a proper noun, the Cricinfo page just uses 'Green Park'. —Vensatry _(Talk) 16:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It really doesn't read right to me with 'the' in front of the stadium name. This isn't common in England, for instance, you wouldn't say the Old Trafford, simply Old Trafford. So, I think it should apply to this as well. NapHit (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - If 'Stadium' is a part of the noun, 'the' is mandatory I guess. We say 'the MCG', 'the SCG', 'the Wankhede Stadium', etc., —Vensatry _(Talk) 04:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is true, case closed then!
"the first in 1952 when India played England." add since to the start of this
"batsman in the ground." -> at the ground
"at this ground." -> at the ground, this applies to all usages
There's no need for the font size of the table to be less than 100%. This could also affect users who are visually impaired.

NapHit (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: Fixed the rest. Thanks very much! —Vensatry _(Talk) 16:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support meets the criteria, great work. NapHit (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – I'll recuse myself from closing the list to provide a needed source check. All of the references appear reliable, work properly, and are well-formatted. Spot-checks of some citations (numbers 4, 8, 12, 19, and 31) revealed no issues with verification or close paraphrasing. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: - note that we decided that you can still close nominations if you give a source review (assuming you feel comfortable with it); that said, I'll close it while I'm here. --Pres N 01:09, 27 April 2016 (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.

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