Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of centuries in women's Twenty20 International 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:02:47 12 January 2020 (UTC).

List of centuries in women's Twenty20 International cricket

 * Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In the newest form of the centuries old game, this feat has only been achieved 20 times by 16 female cricketers. Following on from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket, I believe that this will be a great addition the cricket featured lists on the women's game. I await your feedback on this nomination. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * "the two teams play a single innings, each of which is restricted...." - I know what this is meant to mean, but it doesn't make grammatical sense. I would suggest "each of the two teams plays a single innings, which is restricted...."
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "The Twenty20 format was originally introduced by the England and Wales Cricket Board for the men's county cricket competition with...." - add a comma before "with"
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Dottin's innings set the record for the fastest WT20I century" - well obviously it set a record as the fastest, if it was the first ever. Do you mean that it is still the fastest?
 * It is still the fastest, reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "and is most aggressive" => "and is the most aggressive"
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "with a strike rate with 248.88" => "with a strike rate of 248.88"
 * Corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Batting at number six, this was also one of two occasions...." - bit of a grammatical mess here, as the occasion didn't bat at number six. I suggest "Dottin batted at number six, and this was one of two occasions"
 * Reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "by player batting at number five or lower" => "by a player batting at number five or lower"
 * Corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "with two each centuries each" - don't need "each" in there twice
 * Corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "when she reached 124 not" => "when she reached 124 not out"
 * Corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "While at the age of 16 years and 233 days" => "At the age of 16 years and 233 days"
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Posting a total of 148 not out, this is highest individual score in a WT20I match" => "Healy's final total of 148 not out is the highest individual score in a WT20I match"
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "There have been three instances where a player has scored a century in the second innings of a WT20I match including Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka" - until you get to the next sentence, the singling out of Atapattu here seems very random. I would suggest changing this sentence to simply "There have been three instances where a player has scored a century in the second innings of a WT20I match." and then having the next one as "Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures in the second innings of the first match of the WT20I series against Australia in September 2019, her team lost the match"
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "This match was also one of three occasions where two T20I centuries were scored in the same match" - WT20I, surely?
 * Yes it is. Typo fixed – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "20 centuries have been scored by 16 different players from 789 WT20I matches"W => "20 centuries have been scored by 16 different players in 789 WT20I matches"
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Centuries have scored at 13 different grounds" => "Centuries have been scored at 13 different grounds"
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 4 and 3 in that last sentence should be written as words
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Think that's it from me. Can't see any issues with the table or refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your review. I have addressed each of your comments above. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Teratix

 * a score of one hundred or more runs by a batsman I'm not too familiar with the terminology of women's cricket, but given the subject of the article, isn't it appropriate to use "batter" or "batswoman" throughout?
 * As per the Summary of changes to the Laws of Cricket 2017 Code released by the MCC in April 2017, "The new Code of Laws is written in language applying to all persons, regardless of gender. The new Code includes an increased use of generic nouns like "fielder" and "bowler" and uses "he/she" when required, together with a broadened disclaimer covering all genders. The term "batsman" remains, however." So, it seems that those who were consulted on the updated Laws were happy for term to apply to the fairer sex, so that is the term that we shall use. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A women's Twenty20 International (WT20I) is an international cricket match between two teams, each having WT20I status, as determined by the International Cricket Council (ICC). In a women's Twenty20 match, each of the two teams plays a single innings, which is restricted to a maximum of 20 overs. Switch the order of these sentences, so the format is explained first, and shorten: "In a women's Twenty20 match, each team plays a single innings, which is restricted to a maximum of 20 overs. A women's Twenty20 International (WT20I) match is played between teams with WT20I status, as determined by the International Cricket Council (ICC). " Also put the A and B footnotes here.
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * an international cricket match between two teams ... each of the two teams plays a single innings ... New Zealand defeated England by nine runs "cricket", "innings" and "runs" have already been linked in the first sentence.
 * Unlinked – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * was scored by Deandra Dottin of the West Indies who scored reword to avoid "scored" twice in close succession
 * Reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Dottin, Danielle Wyatt of England and Australia's Meg Lanning and Beth Mooney all lead the list with two centuries each the sentences before are talking about WT20I centuries scored by players batting at number five or lower, so it's not immediately clear what "the list" refers to here.
 * Reworded and moved to the end of the paragraph – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The oldest player to score a WT20I century is New Zealand's Suzie Bates who was aged 30 years and 277 days I would put a comma after "Bates", just to break up the sentence a bit.
 * Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * during the Tri-Nation Series with England this sentence is already long; is "with England" really necessary?
 * Shortened sentence – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * North Sydney Oval in Sydney in October 2019 cut "in Sydney", as the venue name makes that clear.
 * Removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Healy's final total "total" implies "final"
 * Removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures during the second innings of the opening match of the WT20I series against Australia in September 2019, Sri Lanka lost the match This sentence takes a very long time to come to its key point. Change to "Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures during the second innings, Sri Lanka lost the opening match of the WT20I series against Australia in September 2019".
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * a team was defeated with player scoring a century change to "a team was defeated despite a player scoring a century."
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 11 of the 54 teams that hold women's Twenty20 International status any reason why the abbreviation is dropped here?
 * Only so that the abbreviation is not used twice in the same sentence – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * and that have played a WT20I match cut "that"
 * Removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Alyssa Healy holds the record for the highest innings score shorten to "Alyssa Healy posted the highest innings score", as "highest" already implies "record".
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In the key, the meanings of "player", "team", "opposition", "venue" and "date" are so obvious they can be deleted altogether
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In the table, use "Inn." to signify the term has been abbreviated.
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Ref" -> Ref.
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * full women's Twenty20 International status to all its members as 1 July 2018 "on July 2018" maybe?
 * Agree, reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No player of the match was awarded "named" sounds a bit more natural
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Otherwise it's excellent. A comprehensive, well-researched list. Well done. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have addressed each of your comments inline above. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ianblair23, I support this nomination. – Teratix ₵ 13:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Two tiny issues I just noticed: per MOS:IMGSIZE, specifying image widths in px is deprecated, use the "upright" parameter instead; and there's several line breaks underneath the key for no apparent reason (looks especially ugly on mobile). – Teratix ₵ 09:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would just like to note I disagree with Dey subrata's three unresolved suggestions. They will make the lead excessively lengthy and will cause the introduction to dedicate too much time to comparatively insignificant details. The reader can find the information themselves in the table. – Teratix ₵ 14:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree and have responded to Dey subrata's comments below. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * (Responding to Dey subrata) The purpose of the lead is to introduce the topic of the list to the uninitiated reader and note significant aspects of the list, that are not adequately covered in the table, in prose. Records are certainly a key aspect, but it’s possible to be indiscriminate and include excessive and trivial records, which I think is the case with the proposed changes. Additionally, the edits included grammatical errors (e.g. “two centuries scored by players of same team”).


 * I’ll disengage from the FLC for a week, until I’m back on a desktop. – Teratix ₵ 11:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dey subrata

 * Necessity of paid subscription citation? Better remove refs. 41 and 46 already 40 and 45 showing the stats.
 * This was to show that no player of the match was recorded in either ESPNcricinfo or Cricket Archive. But I happy to remove it. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Repeated links of ground and places, link once, like that of Manuka Oval, Canberra or County Ground Taunton per MOS:LINK.
 * As per MOS:REPEATLINK, links can be repeated in tables which I have done here. Every link only appears one in the body of the article. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It says, "...may be repeated..". Here I don't see any requirement of linking in consecutive rows, like "Manuka Oval, Canberra" in 5 & 6, "County Ground, Taunton" in 8 & 9, "Rwanda Cricket Stadium" consecutively in four rows 12,13,14,15, same with "North Sydney Oval, Sydney" and "Pokhra Stadium" consecutively twice. Better to avoid such. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In this instance, as the table is sortable I have chosen to link every venue. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That is the full picture of the records that should be in the lead. You can modify with better wordings. These are the concerns which need to be fixed. I will be happy to support once the issues fixed. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There have been three instances where a player has scored a century in the second innings of a WT20I match. You must include the other two centuries here and seeing the importance of Danielle Wyatt's centuries and both the centuries were scored in second innings and a record itself. Include it before (Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures during the second innings, .....)
 * Include Beth Mooney century, which is the only and first instance to lost match after a player scoring a century. Include after  (– one of only two occurrences where a team was defeated despite a player scoring a century.)
 * (This match was also one of three occasions where two WT20I centuries were scored in the same match.) After including above information, this line become insignificant and will be included in the last line, before that include (This is the first (the line is about Beth mooney's century) out of three occassions where two WT20I centuries were scored in the same match. The second instance was when Prosscovia Alako and Rita Musamali of Uganda scored centuries against Mali, which is also the only instance where two centuries scored by players of same team in a match. The third instance was on 29 September 2019 when Beth Mooney scored her second century in the first innings and Chamari Atapattu scored her century in the second innings.)
 * The last three points remain unresolved. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have included the fact that both of Wyatt's centuries were scored in the second innings. However, as there has been now been a fourth instance of two centuries being scored in a WT20I match, I believe that the lead now strikes a good a balance. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was quite confusing for you to maintain what I have said in these three points and along with that new centuries in a recent match was scored, thus there were changes in records, that why I have included the lines myself accordingly. Check my recent edit and if you want to improve wording you can do, but I feel this should be the scenerio of the records. Please check, if need correction in wording, do it and inform me. Dey subrata (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why a previous reviewer making points when he already given his conclusion and reverting my edits before you could even go through what I've added or not and before you could even make a point. Listen dear editor, this is a record page and every record is a record. And those record gives you a clear picture about if any player scoring century in any innings winning or loosing match or if two players scoring from same side or not, as a reader and record keeper I would like to know. That does not make any disbalance in the article, rather it gives a clear picture. And by saying the table give all those information in my last three points, if we go by that logic there is no need of lead at all, as the table already giving you all information the lead is discusing. I would ask you to include those facts which must be described in the lead and the table follows the lead not the otherwise. I hope you address it. Dey subrata (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments from MWright96
 * Perhaps mention that the ICC is cricket's world governing body for those who are not as well acquainted with cricket?
 * Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "and Australia's Meg Lanning and Beth Mooney" - the 's of the word Australia's in this text should not be part of the first wikilink
 * Fixed – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Dottin's innings is the fastest WT20I century, reaching the milestone from 38 deliveries[12] and is the" - a comma is needed before the references in this section of text
 * Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Healy's total of 148 not out is the highest individual score in a WT20I match[22][23] and the" - same query as above
 * Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "one of only two occurrences where a team was defeated despite a player scoring a century" - the word only is redundant here
 * Removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The third footnote in the notes section will need to be referenced so that the information within it can be verified
 * This information is referenced at the end of each entry in the table. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That's all I found in the prose. The table itself has no issues. MWright96 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks very much for the review. I have addressed each of your points above – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Have no further issues to raise. MWright96 (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes to the lead; feel free to disregard those if you disagree. This looks mostly good and I'm happy to support the nomination. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and for tweaks . Much appreciated. – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Source review – The references are all reliable. One formatting issue exists: refs 48 and 49 are the same and can be combined. The link-checker shows no issues, but I did see one verifiability issue in spot-checks of refs 35, 38, and 48: ref 38 doesn't mention Suzie Bates' player of the match award, unless I'm missing it (that's happened before with me trying to review cricket scorecards). The other references I reviewed did verify similar awards, so I don't know why this one doesn't, but another reference should be found to add to the existing one. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks so much for your review. I have combined refs 48 and 49, and I have added a ref to Cricket Archive showing that Bates received the player of the match award for the 20 June 2018 match. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With those fixes, the source review has been passed. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.