Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries/archive3


 * 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) 00:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC).

List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries

 * Nominator(s): Harrias  talk 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Seven years after the last failed nomination, I bring this one back for your consideration. I'm a bit out of touch over here, as my last nomination was in January 2018, so bear with me!

opposed this last time around as a 3b violation, so let me address that point. List of first-class cricket records has a section entitled Highest individual score, in which seven of the ten entries here appear. However, the two lists are different statistics: the one listed here is every score of 400 or more. The Highest individual score list records only those scores that became the highest ever first-class score. This currently stands at 501, so any future scores between 400 and 500 would not enter that list. Giants2008 brought up the idea that "Is having a 10-item list there really a stretch?" This appears a reasonable point; but as laid out, these are different statistics: to include the missing three items would change the nature of the list. Another query was: "And could the content here reasonably be included in a potential List of first-class cricket triple centuries?" As I laid out in the previous nomination (before I withdrew it), there are over 175 triple centuries in first-class cricket, so such a list seems trivial and unlikely to be created.

Further issues were raised by. Some of these I have worked on and addressed in the article, while other parts of it I don't think are necessary or feasible, so those have not been included, but I am more than happy to be challenged on those points. As always, all comments and input will be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – I'll say that I am still not certain about whether 3b is truly met, but won't oppose to avoid putting the FLC's chances in question right away. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Merge the single sentence "paragraph" in the lead into the one before
 * I have restored an older version of the text which had this merged already. Harrias  talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Bill Ponsford is the only other player to have scored two quadruple centuries; doing so" - semi-colon should be a comma
 * Changed. Harrias  talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "MacLaren's score remained the only quadruple century for over 25 year," - missing S at the end
 * Added. Harrias  talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "according to MacLaren's biographer Michael Down, "standards of play are sometimes hard to assess."" - don't need the comma after Down and the full stop should be outside the quote marks, not inside
 * Done. Harrias  talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Paragraph about Hick is only two sentences so I would merge that with the next one
 * As above, this is restored with the older version. Harrias  talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "only two quadruple centuries that was scored" => were scored
 * Changed. Harrias  talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "denotes the date the match started on" => "denotes the date on which the match started"
 * Changed. Harrias  talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the notes need full stops
 * Changed. Harrias  talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Think that's it from me.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review; I have responded to each point above. Harrias  talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. While I can understand the initial query over criterion 3c (not 3b, article is more than adequately cited), it feels coincidental and not something that would be rectified by merging it—the fact that this has been irreconcilable with the first-class records list since 1948 seems fairly definitive to me. The list itself seems in good nick on a technical level so I'm happy to support it. G RAPPLE   X  17:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(PS I'm supposed to state that I'll be submitting this review as part of my entry in the WikiCup, so there, I've said it... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC))
 * Support happy with this, my unresolved comments were personal preferences, and certainly don't prevent my enthusiasm for the list. Good work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Bharatiya  29  20:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Source review – All of the sources used appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker shows no issues. The source review is a pass. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.