Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets in Test cricket/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 User:Hahc21 17:55, 18 February 2014.

List of bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets in Test cricket

 * Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Zia Khan 19:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This list includes bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in Test cricket. The list also went through a Peer Review and I think this now fulfills the FL criteria. Comments and suggestion are appreciated. Happy holidays to all! Cheers, Zia Khan 19:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Minor issues have been addressed. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment
 * On what grounds you decided to fix the 300 mark as a significant achievement in Test cricket. Why not 200 or may be 400? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  07:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that was answered in the lead with the references to sources quoting a 300-club etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Have a look at ref# 3, 4 and 5. —Zia Khan 20:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * May be, also have a look at, and see what the man at top of the table feels. Although I'm aware that we shouldn't rely too much on Cricinfo, the most comprehensive cricket website, see their standards for "Most wickets in career". Fixing 300 wickets as an yardstick based on some random news sources seems arbitrary to me. &mdash; Vensatry  (Ping me)  06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Before creating the list I had asked for opinion here. Also, at the PR non of the reviewers had this kind of concern, including . I'm not fixing 300 wickets, you may create lists for for 200, 400 or most wickets etc. There are only 11 and 4 bowlers with 400 wickets in Tests and ODIs respectively, and too many bowlers have taken over 200 wickets and many others are about to reach the 200 mark. Many cricket articles depend upon these "random news sources". You showed me Cricinfo's standards for the most Test wicket, so look at this for List of Test cricket triple centuries. Actually, your concern is just like this one. —Zia Khan 11:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought WT:CRIC is the right place. After reading the last comment it's clear that you haven't got my point. Since TRM is a co-nom, I may have to wait for others opinion and will continue with the review if they are satisfied with your benchmark. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  12:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Much better, appreciated. —Zia Khan 13:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with it: Only 11 bowlers have taken over 400 wickets in Test cricket, so that seems a little restrictive, while in excess of 50 bowlers have taken over 200 wickets, so that seems too inclusive. At the moment, this seems the best balance. The line has to be somewhere, and this in my opinion is the most logical point to draw it.  Harrias  talk 12:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Harrias. We need to have a benchmark, and 300 wickets is the most balanced one. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 11:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment
 * The title of the article should be "more than" not over. I'll look at the rest of it in a bit. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I suggest it probably ought to be "300 or more", unless those who take 300 wickets are excluded. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll move the page! —Zia Khan 13:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also the table is sorted by surname, should this be sorted by number of wickets taken, as this is the focus of the article?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The table is sorted by surname because this list is about the bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets rather than the list of most wickets?! Earlier this was sorted by wickets, I changed it because Harrias suggested this at the PR. —Zia Khan 13:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the deafault should be the number of wickets. Compare with (mis-titled) List of batsmen who have scored over 10000 Test cricket runs. Every single Test match/ODI I've ever watched on TV that shows a "career best" table during a slow period in the game, lists the achievement by total runs/wickets/catches/stumpings, etc. Maybe that's just me though. Any others with thoughts on this?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The list you mentioned will be discussed if gets a nomination here. Referring my previous comment, I would say a list of most wickets may be created. Anyway, lets wait what say others! 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine with that, just makes sense to me to have it highest to lowest by wickets taken. Another example is List of tallest buildings in the world. No one would really want this listed A-Z, as the key fact is the height.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm with Nutlugs here, the wickets taken is the key parameter. Should initially sort by that.  Bummer.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my comment at the PR was merely intended to mean that when sorting by name, it should sort by surname alphabetically, not that it should be pre-sorted by surname. That said, I think the player's name should be the row scope.  Harrias  talk 19:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, as suggested! —Zia Khan 05:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice one. Another question - is Daniel Vettori still active in Tests? Hehe, Nutlugs.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think. —Zia Khan 12:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 Mild oppose 
 * While I'm convinced with the "300 figure", I don't think the prose does enough justice to this list at the moment. The first para seems okay, while the second one just reads like a list of facts. Given the amount of sources available and facts to be included, I think the lead can be re-written slightly to make the prose even more engaging. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 11:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what may be changed here. I'll leave this to The Rambling Man. —Zia Khan 21:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel the prose has improved since my previous visit. There are many other aspects which can be included apart from the ones mentioned currently in the lead. However, that isn't a problem. So I'll switch to support. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 16:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is very well sourced throughout. Good job by and  with helping to address some minor fixes, and nice response by  to those comments, above. A few recommendations: the title for the sect Notes should actually be Footnotes, as Notes refers to actual citations and Footnotes refers to comments on article text at the end of the article; in addition, I think the article has room enough for a couple more free-use images, if possible. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the support. —Zia Khan 21:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My pleasure. Good luck with the rest of the FLC, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, but you should change "The list is initially arranged by the most number of wickets taken by a bowler" to "The list is initially arranged in order of number of wickets taken". "Most number" is not gramatically correct English.  It should be "highest number", however saying that the table is sorted by the highest number of wickets taken by a bowler implies that bowlers could have multiple numbers of wickets taken, which is obviously nonsense.  My suggested version is gramatically correct and makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Closing note: This candidate has been promoted. The minor concern left can be handled outside this nomination. — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


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