Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Series Cricket international centuries/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 SchroCat 12:51, 6 February 2015.

List of World Series Cricket international centuries

 * Nominator(s): Harrias talk 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This list broadly follows the format laid out in List of Cricket World Cup centuries. I have omitted a number of the statistics columns as in many of these matches full statistics were not available, so it would be make a poor comparison. As always, all thoughts welcome! Harrias talk 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments - Being the uncultured American I am ;), this list is mostly Greek to me. However, I'll see if I can be of any help.
 * As far as I can tell, the term "century" is neither defined nor linked to anywhere in the article.
 * Oops! Added both a link and a definition on the first usage.
 * Are "WSC Australia" and "WSC West Indies" in rows 1 and 6 meant to have "XI" at the end. If not, are they teams that were not mentioned in the lead?
 * Just an idiot mistake. Sorted.
 * In several places on the table and one place in the last paragraph of the lead, the later (larger numbered) reference comes before the one with the smallest number. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, but my personal preference is to never have this happen, since it looks a little less professional. Just my 2¢.
 * Should all be in order now.
 * Just as a note, all references appear to be proper and reliable. No dead links.

I'm really not a good judge of prose, so I'll leave that to others. This appears to be a well-composed list. Once those few points above are corrected, I'll be ready to support. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, I think I've addressed all of your points. Harrias talk 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Now that my points have been addressed, I can't find anything wrong with this. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall it's a good list, but I am not sure that every reader understands what "Ref" is. I suggest to use Abbreviations to clarify it and the refs. are not in proper order. Consider using proper order, such as [8][3] should be [3][8] and so on.-- FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As per above, I've fixed the ordering of the references I think, and added Abbr for clarification. Thanks! Harrias talk 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — Good one.-- FrankBoy (Buzz) 08:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – All my concerns have been sufficiently addressed. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 08:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – meets the criteria. --Khadar Khani (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * – SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


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