Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of International Cricket Council members/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 not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008.

List of International Cricket Council members
I believe this article should be a Featured List because it meets all the criteria for becoming a Featured List. Black hole77  talk 00:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from

Still a way to go for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "recognized" vs "recognises" be consistent with Brit Eng.
 * Still not overwhelmed by the lead. It needs to be copyedited by someone who doesn't know the structure of international cricket.  I get everything you're saying but it doesn't read particularly elegantly and I think grammatically it falls short.  I'd ask for an independent view.  Perhaps drop User:Dweller a line?  He's a cricket kind of guy but enjoys a good copyedit too...
 * Still need to expand the "member since" column.
 * Make the tables appear similarly, i.e. make the columns the same for each table.
 * {{done}
 * Remove the space before [3].
 * "get ODI status until " - would prefer something like "are awarded ODI status"
 * "Turks and Caicos Islands" takes up two lines on my monitor. You should work more on the col widths to optimise them.
 * Your Cite web references need to have  information and you need to make sure the title's are correct, e.g. for Cayman Islands link, I would expect the title to be something like "Teams - Cayman Islands" or "Cricinfo - Other countries - Teams - Cayman Islands"
 * "get ODI status until " - would prefer something like "are awarded ODI status"
 * "Turks and Caicos Islands" takes up two lines on my monitor. You should work more on the col widths to optimise them.
 * Your Cite web references need to have  information and you need to make sure the title's are correct, e.g. for Cayman Islands link, I would expect the title to be something like "Teams - Cayman Islands" or "Cricinfo - Other countries - Teams - Cayman Islands"
 * "Turks and Caicos Islands" takes up two lines on my monitor. You should work more on the col widths to optimise them.
 * Your Cite web references need to have  information and you need to make sure the title's are correct, e.g. for Cayman Islands link, I would expect the title to be something like "Teams - Cayman Islands" or "Cricinfo - Other countries - Teams - Cayman Islands"
 * Your Cite web references need to have  information and you need to make sure the title's are correct, e.g. for Cayman Islands link, I would expect the title to be something like "Teams - Cayman Islands" or "Cricinfo - Other countries - Teams - Cayman Islands"

Thanks for dropping me in it, TRM! I'll take a look... hope that's OK with you Blackhole? --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I started copyediting, but really, the Lead is too flimsy. It's almost entirely unreferenced, and lacking basic information (I guessed, from memory, the ICC's original name, but I could well be wrong. I also guessed the addition I made about ODIs). Drop me a line when there's a thorough and referenced Lead and I'll help tweak the copy. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed up the Lead by ading some background information of the ICC. Hopefully, that fixes the problem. Black hole77  talk 23:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the first three sentences. Hopefully that diff shows you the level of citation required for a featured quality list article. Have a look at some of the recently promoted FLs. This is some way off and needs work. It's not that the list cannot reach FL, it's just that there's too much to do. In short, this nomination was premature. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added inline citations to the Lead. I believe the Lead is up to the level of citation needed for a FL.
 * A huge improvement. Minor comment; please check that references follow punctuation without spaces? I spotted one; there may be others. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: In the lead you first say "The Imperial Cricket Conference was renamed the International Cricket Council in 1965", then you go onto say "In 1989, the ICC was again renamed, this time the International Cricket Council", am i missing something or is this an double up of names? Salavat (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: In the lead you first say "The Imperial Cricket Conference was renamed the International Cricket Council in 1965", then you go onto say "In 1989, the ICC was again renamed, this time the International Cricket Council", am i missing something or is this an double up of names? Salavat (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Matthewedwards (talk· contribs· count· email) 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates regarding the verbatim copy of the article's title. Also, the way it is now is a parastub, and the first two paragraphs should be merged into one.
 * "Shortly after World War II, Pakistan joined in 1953." doesn't read too well
 * "South Africa was reelected as a Full Member to the ICC in 1991[2]", "there are 10 Full Members[4];" and "there are 58 Affiliate Members[4]," - per WP:CS, don't place references mid-sentence or before punctuation
 * Reference [3] is given in the paragraph for Full members, so I don't see a problem if it was removed from the columns in the table, especially as it's the only one used.
 * In Associate members and Affiliate members, create a new column titled "Reference", and move over the references from "Member since"
 * Per WP:HEAD, only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalised in header titles. So unless "Associate Members" and "Full Members" are the terms used by ICC, the section titles should be "Associate members" and "Full members". Same for "Affiliate Members", and for the table titles ("Governing Body" should be "Governing body")

(might overrun with Matthew)
 * Comments
 * "The Imperial Cricket Conference was based at Lord's." It seems this could be merged with another sentence, probably the one immediately before it.
 * "They were soon joined by India, New Zealand, and West Indies in 1926." Using "they" is unclear pronoun reference.
 * "Shortly after World War II, Pakistan joined in 1953." Should be joined with another sentence, as it is rather short.
 * "In 1961, South Africa resigned due to South Africa leaving the Commonwealth." Link to Commonwealth?
 * "The Imperial Cricket Conference was renamed the International Cricket Conference in 1965.[3] New rules were permitted to allow countries from outside the Commonwealth to be elected in to the governing body for the first time." Could be combined, I think.
 * "The ICC currently has 101 members." Could be put in the first paragraph, I think.
 * "Associate Members are regarded as having cricket firmly established and organised." I think this could be moved to after the first instance of "Associate Members. So: "Below the Full Members are the 33 Associate Members, which are countries regarded as having cricket firmly established and organised."

Noble Story (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose—1, 2, refs.
 * Is the lead trying to "engage" me, as required by Cr. 2? The ponderous lists of which countries joined when comes before I learn what the purpose of the organisation is. I don't mind the founding members at the start, I suppose. And when you says "soon" joined, um ... 1909 vs 1926—is that soon? And why saying soon at all if the years are given? Same with the redundant time-statement about Pakistan.
 * the West Indies.
 * Two alsos.
 * Spell out "ODI" first off; not everyone's an expert.
 * ize or ise: which is it to be?
 * "Full Members are the governing bodies for cricket of a country or countries associated for cricket purposes."—No idea what it means.
 * Refs: I looked at just one—45. What makes "Crickinfo" authoritative? You need to name the producer of the site (I see "ESPN.com - espnsoccernet.com - www.scrum.com" at the bottom – can you look into it?) Refs generally need an audit for reliability and authorship/site owners. TONY   (talk)  08:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.