Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of centuries in women's 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 The Rambling Man 18:18, 7 October 2011.

List of centuries in women's Test cricket

 * Nominator(s): &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The structure used is similar to our other FLs in the topic areas of women's cricket and century lists. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Some anticipatory responses from the nominator: cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Statistics/scorecard keeping has been lax for women's cricket and therefore quite a few entries would have everything but the runs scored and innings columns as unrecorded. Also, we use two major sources across all cricket lists -- Cricinfo and CricketArchive, in this list I've used Cricinfo as the base source and CricketArchive as an additional source if they have better scorecards for games that Cricinfo does not have them.
 * The lede (the first paragraph at least) delves into more "general information" than is typical for such lists where the lede mostly summarises the information. Given the backstory of women's cricket, I believe the historical context adds value to interpreting the list and is better positioned as a part of the lede instead of a link to another article.
 * Why are there three title bars in the list? -- It's a long list and without a title bar in view "minutes" could be taken for "balls faced" and so on. The additional title bars don't affect sorting and are fixed position at start, 50th entry and end.
 * What about the three redlinks? I've tried to create articles for most entries on the list, these are three that would meet our cricket stadiums notability criteria and merit an article, but I haven't been able to find sufficient online sources to create a stub.
 * Other century lists include "fastest century" etc, why aren't those mentioned here? -- Poor recordkeeping (or absence of a scorer when these matches took place!)


 * I think it's unnecessary in the lead to mention that (men's) Tests normally are scheduled for five days, when it then goes on to say that women's Tests last four days. It may confuse, and isn't really relevant. JH (talk page) 13:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't remember who it was now, but it was suggested to me that I should distinguish between the two. But I can cut short the first sentence to something along the lines of what's at List of India women Test cricketers. Would that work? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Modified. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support nice job. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support all looks good to me now: good work on this article, I remember in late 2009 (I think?) when you asked for help turning the red links blue on this: it's taken a while to get here, but it certainly looks worthy of FL status.  Harrias  talk 15:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the time when we had quite a few women's lists promoted, hopefully, we'll get a few more going now, sadly it took me almost two years to get back to it. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC) – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC) – HonorTheKing (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support – Very pleased to see that a high-quality book source was able to be used here. Everything else is in order.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you all (esp Harrias) for helping source this to the best possible reference. Sorry for the delay in response from me, had to go off-grid for a few days. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to fix the scope="row" on each list there. It currently placed there but in a wrong way so it doesn't let it format.
 * scope="row" should be !scope="row" and in its own line so the entire line won't be scoped aswell.
 * Don't forget to add plainrowheaders to the wikitable style if you want the names in the normal texting.
 * add |+ caption to each table per ACCESS.
 * not sure if its correct but maybe change scope="Col" to scope="col".
 * I've fixed the scope="Col" issues. If I change the scope="row" to a separate line, the left alignment requirement is being ignored. If someone can help, I'd appreciate it. I couldn't figure out from MOS:DTT or many of the other current FL noms what to do in this case (the ones that have it, all have the first column as the scope element, not anything later). As for captions, given that this is primarily for readers, is there some way to make it invisible? It's quite redundant to show the section title (and an extra few words) again right above the tables. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you change class="wikitable sortable" to class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" it will be aligned to the left and remove the bold. The lines itself uses text-align=left aswell so It should fix that issue. About the caption, Even tho I agree with you on that, thier exemples and thier lead have it added. so only thing maybe is try and ask in that talk page if it needed in those cases.
 * Done all these. I hope it works now. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Yep well done.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.