Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in international cricket/archive2


 * 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 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in international cricket

 * Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC), Lugnuts (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2016

This is a nice list, well referenced and illustrated. A lot of the work has been put in by, and  but only Lugnuts is editing regularly. I'm sure between he and me, we can address all concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, count me in - I'll do my best to get another cricket-related star on my userpage!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice to see this here again. I see I reviewed it in 2010 and I have a feeling I pointed TRM in this direction of this list earlier in the year when Hardus Viljoen did the deed... Recently an "OR" tag was added and removed and a talk page discussion started, and I think with some tweaking of the opening sentence, and possibly the title too, the objection can be overcome. The list currently starts "Fifty-one bowlers have taken a wicket with the very first ball they bowled in an international cricket match."  Let me give the example of Michael Kasprowicz, who was the first to take a wicket with his first ball in a T20, in 2005. It wasn't his very first ball in an international cricket match - his Test debut was in 1996!  If the opening sentence said "Fifty-one bowlers have taken a wicket with the very first ball they bowled in one of the formats of international cricket (Test match, One Day International or T20)." or something like that, then it's more precise.  Then the title would be more accurately expressed if it was List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in a format of international cricket or List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in an international cricket format or something similar.  BencherliteTalk 10:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Picky. But good picky.  I think you did point me this way, but I completely forgot the discussion over the title.  I agree that the title is misleading.  Another alternative is for us to split the list into List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in Test cricket, List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in One Day International cricket and List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in T20I cricket.  There are sufficient entries to meet the minimum for each format.  While I'd prefer to keep them together, I'm reluctant to contrive a name that's so clunky it'll never show up anywhere...  Any thoughts?  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Three lists would be overkill. Perhaps use those as redirects, though? BencherliteTalk 10:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Getting greedy... (all would meet the criteria!) Perhaps we can work on the prose to ensure its accurate, and try to gather a consensus on how best to name it? I don't mind the redirect stuff, in fact I'll do that right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the title issue, and for the lack of a better alternative that I can think of, I'd go with the previously suggested name of List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in a format of international cricket.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thus moved. Now then, to the list itself please! , if you're happy (or happyish) would you cap your comments on the name so we can encourage comments on the list itself please?  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the missing ODI names. TRM - can you take a look at the lead for the article? It states that Arthur Coningham was the first Test player, but the table/source states it's Tom Horan. There's a rather good source attached to Coningham, so I don't just want to butcher it!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Can't we have separate pages for each format? 20, 22 and 12 seems like a reasonable fork. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did mention that above, but Bencherlite felt that a single list was more appropriate. I'm not fussed either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not hellbent on that. Given that last six entries of the T20I table are from the last five years, it's more likely to grow. We can probably decide on this when the count reaches 20. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, would you be able to review the list itself if you get time? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, will review it before the weekend. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – I strongly disagree with a separate pages for each list. I prefer the way it is right now with a single list, it is much more appropriate. There is not much difference in the lead that could be written, and they are all thematically similar. Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I support this too. Hopefully there's nothing major stopping this from being promoted up to FL. - have you had the opportunity to review the list? Thanks in advance.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Source review &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Only Maurice Tate, Intikhab Alam and Nathan Lyon went on to play in more than ten Tests" - Ref. missing for Lyon. ✅
 * "The first to achieve this feat was Australian Michael Kasprowicz who took wickets with his first and second delivery in this format in 2005, dismissing New Zealand's Stephen Fleming and Mathew Sinclair." - You need to cite the 'second wicket' and 'Sinclair' parts.✅
 * Is 'cricketcountry.com' a RS? &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Spotchecks done for rest of the refs. in the lead - No issues.
 * Refs. for the three tables (main) - Ted Arnold's first victim was Victor Trumper, not Reggie Duff. ✅


 * - apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I've now fixed everything per your comments above. I hope everything is now in order. Thanks again for reviewing this.  - please could you cast your eye over the article now, incase I've missed anything. Thanks!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * - re: the reliable source, I think it is, but in the avoidance of doubt, I've found a source from CricketArchive and replaced it.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, nice work. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Two small changes I might recommend:
 * 1. "Not all of these bowlers took their first wicket in their debut match." -> "Not all of these bowlers took their first wicket in their debut matches."
 * 2. Perhaps you might check if photo captions should contain the stops at the end of the caption sentences. My support any which way. Lourdes  12:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the first, there are multiple bowlers but they each only have a single debut. As for the second comment, both captions are complete sentences (i.e. not fragments) so the use of the full stop is correct.  Thanks for the support. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. With respect to the "debut matches", I think I noticed a different usage in the next statement: "Clive Lloyd, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Sadagoppan Ramesh, and Martin van Jaarsveld did not bowl in their debut matches." So had an opinion that either it should be "match" in both statements or alternatively "matches". I may be wrong but and would defer to your opinion. Thanks and good work. Lourdes  16:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support very nice looking list and, although looking hard, I couldn't find any issues except that maybe "no." should be defined in the key. - Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 12:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Question: According to the sources on Flag of Australia, the current Australian flag was adopted in 1903, so the flag in the "For" column for Tom Horan and Arthur Coningham and in the "Against" column of Bill Bradley and Ted Arnold should be the Flag of None. Similarly, according to List of South African flags and, South Africa didn't have an official national flag in 1906, and the flag depicted came into use in 1928. Hence, the "For" column for Bert Vogler and the "Against" column for Jack Crawford should have the Flag of None, and the George Macaulay and Maurice Tate "Against" columns should have the 1912-28 flag. Joseph2302 21:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment; while I was going through this list fixing a few minor sorting issues; I found that in the T20I list there is further issues with numbers 5 & 6. When sorting by date either backwards or normally they are in the wrong order. The weird thing is they aren't the same date unlike the other issues I fixed. - Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 07:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yellow Dingo, thanks. Sorry for not seeing these comments sooner.  I'll look to address them tomorrow.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

all done. Tomorrow turned into next week. As is life. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I have supported further up this FLC. - Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 06:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Great list, and the minor issues have been fixed. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 15:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Source review: Sources are all OK - formatting good, spotchecks shown the information is supported and no copy vios. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

- SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.