Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Test cricket records

List of Test cricket records
Self-nom. Yet another cricket list but I think it looks good and presents useful data in a package that's not available anywhere else I've seen. Topical also, as table #5 got updated only a couple of days ago. - Ian &equiv; talk 13:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC) Full support: amazing list! Comments: 1) Some of the images used have a dubious licence. I suggest you not use them. 2) Shouldn't The Oval and Lord's be rendered as London? All other cricket grounds have the city name displayed. Seems inconsistant to me. Great info BTW. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  18:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support jguk 14:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments - good work, but some niggles. (i) I wonder how much effort it is going to be to keep parts up to date, for example, "Matches played", or the individual records for active players. (ii) There are no references (presumably the external links are references, plus Wisden?). (iii) I still dislike TOCright.  (iv) The images disrupt the consistency of column widths; on the other hand, some more images would be welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's lots of articles which need to be kept up to date - all the national team pages now have infoboxes with the number of Tests played for example. I don't see this as any different and if it falls 1 or 2 matches behind - so what?  The next person along will update.  I just went through and updated it and other than the 1st table, only Shane Warne needed updating.  I'm not sure I understand your 2nd point - yes, the external links to the corresponding Cricinfo page is the reference.  I also didn't like TOCright, and it's now gone. - Ian &equiv; talk 15:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (i) Fair enough; I was just testing the water. I just worry that we are setting ourselves up for a fall. I suppose the best way to deal with this is with an explicit "As of ...".  (ii) There needs to be a section entitled "References" which list all of the sources that were used to compile, and can be used to check, the contents of the article.  I think all of the external links are indeed references, and I'm sure Wisden would be too.  (iii) Thanks.  (iv) Images? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (i) There is a "Records current to" section already there. As most of the tables will rarely change, I've put it in once only to assist editing. (ii) Every table has a "Source:" at the bottom.  Is this not sufficient? (iv) all images are now removed -- Ian &equiv; talk 01:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ian, the records rarely change, and when they change its big news. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I will support when a References section is added - it is an explicit requirement of the criteria. It is good that each entry has a link to Cricinfo - is that the only source?  Was nothing checked at cricketarchive or in Wisden?-- ALoan (Talk) 20:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1). ==References== added 2). All the tables have been rechecked against Cricketarchive. I suppose it's a matter of personal preference which one you use, but they all report the same data. I happen to prefer Cricinfo. 3). Wisden operates Cricinfo. -- Ian &equiv; talk 01:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent. Query whether the external links need to have dates added ("Downloaded ...") but I perhaps the "Records current to" section deals with that adequately.  Also query whether it would be worth adding links to the Cricketarchive pages that confirm the information from Cricinfo?  (I know Wisden owns Cricinfo, but do they always agree in all particulars?) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2). I've added ", London" to both to differentiate.


 * Object
 * The image Image:Melb-MCG.JPG is claimed under fair use. I don't think fair use can be claimed here, as the image is not essential to the article.
 * The images Image:Bradman 2.jpg, Image:Markwaugh.jpg, Image:Steve Waugh.jpg do not have source or copyright information.
 * --Carnildo 20:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've edited the intro a bit. I think it reads a little better now. I will support if the two "Progression of Records" tables are in chronological rather than reverse chronological order. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing the order would be a bit odd I think. All the tables that report positive results show the leading record at the top and the current record is the one you want the readers eye drawn to. I'd be interested in others opinions though. -- Ian &equiv; talk 01:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with OpenToppedBus. A "progression of the record" should start with the earliest record score and move on towards the present day, jguk 06:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Update - progression tables order reversed -- Ian &equiv; talk 15:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fully support now. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:27, August 15, 2005 (UTC)