Template:Did you know nominations/List of Kings XI Punjab cricketers

List of Kings XI Punjab cricketers

 * ... that Shaun Marsh (pictured) has scored the most runs for Kings XI Punjab?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kentrigg
 * Comment: Moved from userspace.

Created/expanded by Thine Antique Pen (talk). Self nom at 14:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT1: that Shaun Marsh (pictured) has scored the most runs for Kings XI Punjab?
 * ALT2: that out of the 56 cricketers who have played for Kings XI Punjab, Shaun Marsh (pictured) has scored the most runs?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Seems fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Thine   Antique   Pen  14:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Players' photographs must be arranged so that it doesnt look like an empty article. Needs columns.Khyati Gupta (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first hook is not really visible in the text of the article. I read the source. It does indicate that he scored the most, but you have to explicitly state it in the article itself. Khyati Gupta (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Another additional formatting fixing needs to be done, the "Key" should be with the column of the scores list. Either move the scores at the top with the key and move the picture gallery at the bottom or do it the other way around. Khyati Gupta (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the hook's link to the article needs to be relevant. Eg:
 * ALT3: ... that Shaun Marsh (pictured), one of the Kings XI Punjab cricketers, scored the most runs in IPL?
 * Khyati Gupta (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! Thine   Antique   Pen  08:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, player's photos don't need to be in columns, see List of Delhi Daredevils cricketers for a current FL candidate which just passed DYK
 * Ref added.
 * I'm keeping it where it is, see List of Delhi Daredevils cricketers. Thine   Antique   Pen  08:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Before there was an empty space beside the pictures. Now its not there and the scores are aligned with the pictures. I was only suggesting columns. It looks way better now. Good work! Khyati Gupta (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you might've needed to purge it! If you're reviewing this, could you? If not, someone else can. :)  Thine   Antique   Pen  09:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

New enough and long enough at the time of nomination. Images have acceptable copyrights. Hook proposed is formatted properly, the article was created 14th August. So it is still brand new while nominated for DYK. The scores have been neutrally explained the the beginning. The scores were interpreted by looking at the raw scores themselves so it is free of copyright violations or plagiarism. Sources are cited properly. I read through the sources to see if they are valid and they do seem valid and free of any copying and pasting on wikipedia. It needs copyediting, though. I am not going to penetrate into the article so that I could avoid an edit conflict and smoothly approve the article after minor fixing has been done. Like for example:
 * " They lost the 2008 semi-final to the Chennai Super Kings on 31 May 2008, after playing fourteen matches in the league, winning ten matches and losing four" reword it.
 * "On 10 October 2010, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) terminated the franchise agreement of the team, along with the Rajasthan Royals, because the teams had been signed by people who were not members of the consortium." reword it.
 * "Chawla has taken the most Wickets in the team, with 73 overall, 26 more than any other player in the team.[20] Yuvraj Singh has batted 42 innings, the most in the team and has played 43 matches, the second-most in the team." How do you know they are the most?Khyati Gupta (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See my talk.
 * See my talk
 * The reference explains it fine. Thine   Antique   Pen  22:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg just as per original review. The "reword" demands by Guptakhy are incomprehensible to me. (Side note: all suggested hooks are intensely boring. Isn't there anything interesting about this topic that we can say?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)