Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of I Zingari first-class cricketers/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 Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010.

List of I Zingari first-class cricketers

 * Nominator(s):  Harrias  talk 10:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the requirements. It is modelled off lists such as List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers and List of South Africa women Test cricketers that have already attained FL status.  Harrias  talk 10:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support (never 'eard of 'em) enjoyed it, decent list, up to scratch as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Just a few nit-picks in an otherwise fine list...
 * Little redundancy here: "while the highest score for I Zingari was 147, scored by Teddy Wynyard." The "score" and "scored" is what I'm referring to.
 * Removed "scored".  Harrias  talk 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Members of the peerage also played for I Zingari; including...". The semi-colon should probably just be a regular comma.
 * Changed to comma.  Harrias  talk 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The publisher for reference 1 should be in italics, since the Wisden Almanack is a printed work.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 23:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is now italicised!  Harrias  talk 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – Meets FL standards.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Good work, meets standards, and I'm not finding anything to nit-pick about. Courcelles 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support You might want to include a bit about the derivation of the name if you can find a source, although that's not enough to make me oppose. I made a couple of copy edits you'll want to double check, but otherwise the lead seems fine; it provides a good summary of the main points of the table and is a good introduction to the subject. I like the layout of the table, it's fairly standard and the sorting works fine. As there are 85 players I haven't gone through all the sources to double check if they're correct, but did spot-check five (from working on similar lists I know transcribing errors can creep in as you're doing the same thing over and over) and everything checked out fine. Well done Harrias on the good work. Nev1 (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


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