Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of highest individual scores in ODIs/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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC).

List of highest individual scores in ODIs

 * Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, Other than fulfilling the criteria, want to bring to notice that the article has been here since 2015 and other related articles like as listed in the (see also) section are now FL article, and as most crierion are satisfied, i think the article has a scope to get listed as FL. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Written as prose with a good lead, introducing readers briefly about the ODI format and also accounts important records chronologically.
 * The article is comprehensive with all necessary informations related to the ODIs and individual matches and the innings and batter's batting profile for that match in which runs are scored and also provided with citations per WP:RS.
 * Have a organised structure of the list table, cosnisting with proper sections and heading per WP:DTT and names are sorted per Sort.
 * Complies with WP:MOS.
 * The article is stable, as all information are well tabled and with citations, there is very little scope of edit wars.

Support Comments from Aoba47 Everything else looks good. I know absolutely nothing about cricket so I can only focus on the prose. Once my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Any reason why "Deepti Sharma" does not have a reference?
 * I would recommend adding ALT text to the image.
 * Any reason why this part (since then there have been over 4,000 ODIs.) does not have a citation?
 * This is a rather long sentence: (On 16 December the same year, Australian women cricketer Belinda Clark broke the 200 runs mark and set the highest individual score of unbeaten 229 runs in One Day Internationals against Denmark at MIG Club Ground, Mumbai which remained unbroken for almost 17 years till Indian batsman Rohit Sharma broke the record on 13 November 2014 scoring a 264 runs against Sri Lanka on 13 November 2014 at Eden Gardens in Kolkata, which remains the highest individual score in the ODIs but Clark remains the highest individual scorer as a captain and her score remains as the highest individual score in Women's World Cup.) I'd recommend breaking it up to avoid having such a long sentence.
 * Fixed all the issues, alt text added, citations added for both, long sentence broken. Dey subrata (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything so quickly. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * I made a small tweak and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, your recent edit making sense, its more clear now. Dey subrata (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello all editors here, can you please consider to put your comments here. It will be helpful for promotion. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly can't see any other problems. Very well-written, should be an FL in no-time (sorry it's taken so long). Great job to you! – zmbro (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments from zmbro
 * Is "one innings" grammatically correct?
 * Make sure the table has scope rows per MOS:ACCESS
 * Yes one or an innings is correct, its a singular term and also a plural term. Fixed table with scope row. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I figured it was just wanted to be sure. The scope rows are currently reaching the first 3 cols (I think that's because of the way it's coded). Just the first or second col would suffice. – zmbro (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think first and 3rd will be better, as its about highest individual score. Fixed accordingly. Dey subrata (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Idk it seems odd to me to have two separate cols be bolded like that. I'd leave it just as the first col. – zmbro (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine. Kept in first column only. Dey subrata (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – All good now. Happy to support – zmbro (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick comment from Vensatry

 * May I ask, what made you draw the line at 180 for this list? Further, the ODI double centuries list has become totally redundant. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank for your comment.Because of the sheer number of centuries scored, we can't include all, it will be ridiculously long article, 1000s of centuries scored. Secondly, as this is about highest individual scores, a sample space of around 25 highest centuries taken in this case which lead 180 to be base line and 180 is also helpful to keep a constant and logical lead for the article and also not much centuries scored above 180 mark. It can be very easily understandable from this- If you just consider to reduce the base line to next 10 digit, i.e, 170, you will find there are 25 more centuries with in 170 to 180, which will be unnecessarily long. And yes I agree with that, the List of double century is redundant. Dey subrata (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, that's not my point – I'm asking what made you fix the 'cutoff' at 180? Also, I see that you've included scores from Women's ODI. Surely, that doesn't belong here because both formats are not comparable. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have discussed it in the second line, if you had read it. This summarizes highest individual scores, not a article which shows list of centuries in ODIs. For this we need to mark a base line and need a minimum sample size to represent the statistics to summarize the topic. Here the sample size taken is 25 which lead to 180 as base line. Secondly, if we push below 180 say 170, there are around 20-25 centuries within this small sample size, almost the same size of centuries between 180 and 264, which will be meaningless to add, its goes increasing with every 10 digit. A sample size of 25 is more than enough. With that I have added the progression of record, so that no question arises on how record progressed over the time along with dicussing in the lead too. Secondly, as I have said we are discussing about highest runs in ODIs, we are not gender differentiating or comapring. ODIs in both women and men case is same, every rules and regulation are applied same. Its the same format of cricket played. Along with its a unique article also as fist 200 runs attempt in any ODIs (men or women) was a woman and and was record highest runs for almost 20 years. Thus its very precisely sticking to the topic and gives more clear picture of the topic "highest individual scores". Along with this, it also summarises how the record progress from the 200 runs mark to 264 over the years. And the lead of the article also describes the same very clearly. Dey subrata (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you even understand the question? Anyways, about WODIs the fact that men's and women's format follow the same set of rules/regulations doesn't matter because it doesn't make sense to compare both formats unless both genders get to compete against each other. ODI is DIFFERENT from WODI. Otherwise, why do we need articles on Women's Test cricket and Women's ODI in the first place? Going by your logic, the following articles are redundant: Women's Test cricket records, Women's Test cricket records, Centuries in Women's Test cricket, Centuries in Women's One Day International cricket, Centuries in Women's Twenty20 International cricket, et al? &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In case, you don't follow the game:, , &mdash; Vensatry  (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your question very well. Didn't you able to get answer to.."what made you draw the line at 180?" I have discussed that clearly, I don't think it needs any more clarity on it.
 * (1). Dear, I follow cricket very much, I want to let you know your example factually wrong as women test is different format from men's test match. Women's test match is of 4 days while the men's is of 5 days game. Thus a seperate article is necessary for the different formats. So such a point does not count here. Here both ODIs are of same format.
 * (2). List of centuries in women odi or T20 is similarly necessary the way, list of centuries in world cup, or champions trophy are created because it keeps record of different tournaments not different formats. So such list does not become redundant. Secondly, we are talking about highest individual scores which comprises of few highest scores which shows top highest scores in this format and how the highest individual score progressed over time. AND all those lists that you have added summarizes every single centuries in a specific tournament not a format. So this article is totally different from those lists, by topic and by structure.
 * (3).I don't follow news article much, but I follow primary and most reliable sources, this is the way world cricket body ICC 1 specifically describes such It was the first double-century in one-day international cricket, by a man or a woman, if it were different format, they should not have publish record as the first 200 in ODI, Wisden Cricketers' Almanack 2 described, She was the first player, male or female, to make a double-century in a one-day international, this is how Cricket Australia 3 described Belinda Clark became the first person to score a one-day international double century., even news meadia; this is how The Statesman 3 described Belinda Clark of Australia was the first batter in the entire world to score 200 runs in an ODI innings. Its many more if I go, from ICC to reliable source, everyone describes it as highest or first irrespective of both in ODI not in WODI.
 * Finally, the describe about ODIs not men's or women's. Already mixed gender cricket started, so highest records are highest i the format is same. And the lead of the article clearly describe about when who created the record. It gives a very clear picture or the records and don't give a scope of any confusion. Thank you.Dey subrata (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point very well. I'm asking what made you arbitrarily fix the cutoff at 180 (i.e. 25 innings). Have you previously discussed this at WT:CRIC (or any other related Wikiproject)? Frankly, it would've at least made some sense had this been named "List of 180 plus scores in ODIs" – similar to List of bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in Test cricket (an FL) and List of bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in One Day International cricket. Second, taking into account the rate at which such "high" scores are made in ODIs, we might have to raise the "bar" (which now stands at 180) periodically. Your point about men's Tests and women's Tests being different is not relevant here because I believe we're talking about ODIs Vs WODIs (I'd only brought that up as an example). But then, WODI differs from ODI in terms of ball weight (and size), (shorter) boundaries, field restrictions et al. In any case, it surely doesn't make any sense to have both stats in a single table as there are plenty of issues. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well we are talking about formats, not about how much boundaries and weight, there are many cricket stadium which have very small boudaries like that of NewZealand's Eden park and some have very big boundaries like of MCG (highly variable thing, its always mentioned "generally" it should be this and that not a mandatory) We are talking about basics of formats. Most importantly, I don't think as long as ODIs is concerned, and the record is about highest individual score and as long as ICC and Wisden and relaible news medias saying it as highest and first in ODIs, its not a problem in anyway. Now coming to real issues, we can move the page from List of highest individual scores in ODIs to List of individual scores more than 180 runs in ODIs but before that I have a question. Where is the difference between the two, both are describing the highest scores. Secondly, in the latter case, we need to emphasize on 180. It will be absurd. (The following table lists scores of 180 or higher.) on the top of the table actually telling you there are many centuries but as the list is about "highest scores", scores upto 180 is taken. Secondly, in the first table the question immediately comes, then how can one know about the progression happened, thus the progression table is placed. Everything is cristal clear now as I have added the progression table. I want to give you another example, "List of centuries in ODIs" and "List of highest individual scores in ODIs" what will you expect in these lists. In the first you will expect all centuries (which does not exist due to same reason) and in the second you will ofcorse expect few top scores (thats why top 25 scores are mentioned). Lastly, I think for this table there can be two case, keep a minimum of scores(which already exist) or scores above 170 (as 171 was first score above 150 barrier, but it will need 25 more centuries to be added). Which one do you think is more feasible, I think the minimum of scores which justify the topic.Dey subrata (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Umm, can you explain why should we have separate articles on Men's ODI and Women's ODI records (instead of having them under one article as per your argument)? As for "highest" qualifier, it's going to be subjective. I'd personally fix the cutoff at 200 because the figure is objective and is considered a "milestone" (even in Tests) in a player's career. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * First we are talking about this particular article, my argument is specifically and precisely for this article and the argument, is given in bold above. Now as you asked about thsoe articles, this article talks about only one record of ODI cricket out of hundreds of different records, where as the articles that you have mentioned include various records in ODI in different formats, so there is no comparison between those articles with this one. Secondly, an article can be unique to other articles, and any reader who will go through the lead will have no problem in understanding the build up of records, its chronologically described along with mentioning the required information in the box to identify which score is from which tournament. Coming to your second point, I already have discussed that in my last reply(above), still want to add with that, it also gives a perspective to see how many players were able reach so close to 200 runs without reaching or breaking it. Now as you mentioned 200 runs about test, in cricket indeed 200 runs is an achivement so is a 100. In test 200 runs is not an extraordinary achievments, good achievment for sure, as it can often be observed being acored by test batsmen in their career, it can be more evidently assured from the fact that around 50 test batsmen have atleast 3 double centuries, so its not a big deal in Test, in test 400 is the extraordinary echievement and records of highest runs generally kept from 300 around 30 scores are kept. Similarly, in ODI 200 runs is the extraordinary, but the bench mark cannot be 200 then, it should be below that, thats why 180 kept and around 25 scores. I don't see that we need to keep banging on this, the lead is good the body is good along with the progression. I hope you agree. Dey subrata (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

 * Prose
 * Should this list be merged with List of One Day International cricket double centuries?
 * Well that list is actually redundant, merge or delete any one of the case.
 * IMO, yes. Drawing the line at 200 (the figure is NOT subjective) is the best way to go about in these lists. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "One Day International cricket (ODI cricket) is played between international cricket teams which are Full members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) as well as the top six Associate and Affiliate members." This is only true for men's cricket, not women's cricket.
 * "ODI cricket is List A cricket, so statistics and records set in ODI matches also count toward List A records." This seems superfluous.
 * Any response to this point? Harrias  talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes ODIs counted against List A records. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of false titles in the article, please rewrite to avoid these. Some useful information is provided in this article.
 * This is unresolved. Harrias  talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please specify which one you need to be fixed, you are directing me to a third party links. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a review towards Featured status, not a peer review, or copy edit forum. I have provided a link which identifies what false titles are, and how to avoid them. Other resources are available via Google. Harrias  talk 22:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read that article earlier and did not find such false titles, the kind of nouns or adjective described in the article. Also read other articles. But if you are talking about "Pakistani" or New Zealander" then these are not false titles as people of Pakistan are called Pakistani and it goes on other country or you are talking about something else. Dey subrata (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "In men's cricket Charles Coventry equalled Anwar's record after 12 years when Zimbabwe's innings ended with him on a score of 194 not out against Bangladesh at Queens Sports Club ground in Bulawayo." This sentence needs breaking up, it is trying to do far too much.
 * "In ODIs, the.." This whole article is about ODIs, I don't think this clarification is necessary.
 * The prose is generally very clunky, there are a lot of busy sentences that need breaking up more for ease of reading.
 * The prose quality is still low, featuring a lot of repetition and busy sentences. Harrias  talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Broken sentences and remove repetition of ODIs whereever possible, only kept in 2 places where if removed looks odd. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed all above.
 * Table
 * Per MOS:DTT add table captions.
 * Kerr's strike-rate needs two decimal places.
 * Per MOS:FLAG, the use of flags in the venue column is non-compliant.
 * There is a lot of overlinking of place names in the Venue column; Melbourne, Kolkata etc don't need links.
 * This is unresolved. Harrias  talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no repeat link now in the table, every single place is linked once. I are firm follower of MOS:OVERLINK, but all other FL cricket lists linked the places in tables even repeated links. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "MCG, Melbourne, Melbourne" Is clunky. Melbourne Cricket Ground will suffice. Similar for "National Stadium, Karachi, Karachi"
 * This is unresolved. Harrias  talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, fixed, i thought you were talking about table 2. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed all above.
 * Source review
 * "Clark's score remains the highest achieved by a captain" The reference provided does not support this claim.
 * This is unresolved. The sources provided demonstrate that she was captain, but not that her score is the highest made by a captain. Harrias  talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 3 scorers have more runs than her. I have added other 2 highest scorer links (Sharma and Guptill) where its written they're not captain, in her links its mention she is captain and Kerr was not. Thus no possibilities of confusion. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SYNTH that is not sufficient. Harrias  talk 22:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , removed all four individual players link, added links for highest scores by captain. Dey subrata (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's a few things to get going with on a skim read; I can provide a more detailed review once these have been addressed. Harrias talk 09:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "as well as the highest individual score in the Women's World Cup" The reference provided only supports this "as of 2017".
 * This was me being an idiot, as there hasn't been a Women's World Cup since 2017. *eyeroll* Harrias  talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to curse urself man, we all learn here, if u are from US, let me tell you I have zero idea about baseball or nfl records n tournament, but thats not make idiot. Chill, everyone learn new things everyday.
 * I literally attended the 2017 Women's World Cup. Harrias  talk 22:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * :), I'll better not to comment then. Dey subrata (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't just use web addresses for publication titles; ref #4 should have India Today as the work and Living Media India Limited as the publisher. Check the rest too.
 * This is unresolved for refs #7, #12 and #24. Harrias  talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ref 7 is of Cricket Australia (Australian Cricket Board), they are not a publishing house, so should be kept as work and website. ref 12 fixed, website based media, kept accordingly. ref 24 fixed. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed all above.
 * Fixed all above.
 * Addressed your issues. Dey subrata (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have responded inline above. Harrias  talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Responded above. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for poor prose, which is far from the required "professional standards of writing". Harrias  talk 16:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are opposing for previously said "false titles" in the prose then as I replied, I don't see any false title in the prose. The prose is written similar to all other cricketing record lists. I asked also which of the words look like false title, and I don't find any wikipedia policies of false title also. Dey subrata (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked a copyeditor to do copyedit in the prose. He also did not find any obvious false title. I don't understand, we all here for the same purpose, if you have seen anything wrong you could have done that correct yourself also. Where is the harm? Now as the copyeditor gone through the prose, I don't think there exists any thing by which it can be called as "poor prose" and saying far from professional level is bit harsh to me. Dey subrata (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here are some more specific points from the first paragraph alone, plus an example of a false title. I am not going to go through the entire prose and point everything out; it is the job of the nominator to have an article is a fit state for Featured review, not for reviewers to drag rubbish up to standard. Harrias talk 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "One Day Internationals cricket..." This is not grammatically correct.
 * "Men's ODI cricket is played between teams which are Full members of the ICC as well as the top six Associate and Affiliate members." This is a clunky formulation, and should be reworked to avoid the use of "as well as".
 * "In women's cricket the ODI is.." This is not grammatically correct.
 * "..top-10 ranked.." Should not have a hyphen.
 * "Unlike test matches, ODIs.." "Test matches" should be capitalised.
 * Reference #1 does not support all the information given.
 * "ODI cricket is List A cricket, so statistics and records set in ODI matches also count toward List A records." This sentence is still awkward and superfluous, as I noted above, and has been ignored. It is also unreferenced.
 * "by Pakistani batsman Saeed Anwar" This is a false title, as it places two noun phrases together: "Pakistan batsman" "Saeed Anwar".
 * , all the above corcerns are fixed. Dey subrata (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello,, can you atleast do the source review, its about 5 months now. Dey subrata (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like this nomination has stalled, and Vensatry and Harrias expressed some major concerns in their reviews. I'm getting busier in non-Wikipedia matters at the moment and am not sure if I'll have time to do a source review, but we need to see that those two reviewers are satisfied with your changes as we're leaning towards no consensus territory at the moment. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 20:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 01:16, 10 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.