Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by V. V. S. Laxman/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 not promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 18 December 2011.

List of international cricket centuries by V. V. S. Laxman

 * Nominator(s): Commander  (Ping Me) 10:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is defined in a similar way as that of other FLs such as the century lists and I believe it meets the criteria. Commander (Ping Me) 10:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments from  Harrias  talk
 * My intial and primary concern with this article is whether it is notable. Within WP:CRICKET, the unwritten line for a player to have a list of this sort is 25 international centuries (as demonstrated by Template:International cricket centuries.) Without a doubt V. V. S. Laxman is a notable and prominent cricketer, but I'm just not sure whether this is going to set a precedent that means practically every international cricketer will end up with one of these lists. I know we're not going to run out of space, but on the other hand, we can't list everything! The parent biography article isn't particularly long as it stands, could this be merged into that article? On the other hand, if that then gets heavily expanded and to a Good or Featured standard, would there then be an argument for this to become a seperate list, in which case we'd return to the first argument? Any thoughts from anyone else? (Note: as it stands, 41 cricketers have scored 25 or more centuries, and a further 14 have scored 21 or more, equivalent to Laxman.)  Harrias  talk 19:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I had this doubt when I created this list. See this discussion. VVS Laxman is definitely a notable cricketer and many of his 100s are landmark centuries. Since he is yet to retire and only three short of 25, I think there is nothing wrong in having a separate list. -- Commander (Ping Me) 03:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the list there are a few issues even if this point is resolved:
 * The opening sentence: "V. V. S. Laxman is an Indian cricketer." seems unnecessarily short to me. It would seem to flow better if merged into the subsequent sentence: "V. V. S. Laxman is an Indian cricketer, who has scored a total.."
 * Done -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A bit more of a summary of Laxman with his cricketing achievements and batting style would probably be appropriate in this first paragraph.
 * "..against Australia in at Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney, in 2000.." – "in at" should probably be replaced with "at the", and I don't think that it needs clarfying that the Sydney Cricket Ground is in Sydney, mentioning where it is would probably only be necessary if it wasn't in Sydney!
 * Done -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "..next century also came against the same team in 2001, where he.." – Given that "next century" is a time related statement, "when" would probably be more appropriate in this case than "where".
 * Done -- Commander (Ping me) 06:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "His 281 is the highest individual score by a batsman in an India–Australia test match." – "Test match" should be capitalised as such, and I would prefer for "India–Australia" to be written out, it would probably work better slightly reworded: "His 281 is the highest individual score in a Test match between India and Australia."
 * Done -- Commander (Ping me) 06:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "It was also the highest individual score by an Indian until that day." – I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say: it definitely needs clarification. Also, what makes Its Only Cricket a reliable source?
 * Done Replaced using a reliable source. -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of sources, with that one aside, you only reference ESPNcricinfo: a greater variety, particularly in the lead, would be preferable.
 * Done -- Commander (Ping me) 06:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * None of the ESPNcricinfo sources works at the moment; I assume you used a replace function to change from Cricinfo to ESPNcricinfo, which has resulted in: "espnespncricinfo.com" addresses.
 * Done Yes. I used the replace function! -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The first reference is also formatted differently from the remainder of the ESPNcricinfo sources: try to be consistent.
 * Done -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref 4 is missing the final "t" from "Test".
 * Done -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The hyphens in the reference should be endashes.
 * Done -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref 6 finishes "4t" whereas the other references are in the format "4th Test".
 * Done -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "..and remained unbeaten on 32 occasions." – Not entirely sure that this is relevant: an unbeaten score in the nineties might be worth mentioning, especially if there are a few of them, but merely noting the number of "not out"s in his career seems trivial.
 * I don't see anything wrong in mentioning this. Many FLs (century lists) have this included in the lead. -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "In ODIs, Laxman has scored six centuries against three different countries with four of them against Australia." – I'm not keen on the "with four of them against Australia": possibly try "including four against Australia" instead?
 * Done -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ".. the last of the five match series.." – should probably be ".. the last of a five match series..".
 * Done -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "His highest score of 131, came against Zimbabwe at the Adelaide Oval, .." – No need for the comma after the score.
 * Done -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In the key, "remained" does not need to be capitalised.
 * Done -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: In summary, the article has quite a few issues. The quality of the writing is in general below that I would expect in featured content, and for this, in addition to the other reasons above, I'm afraid I am going to have to oppose the promotion of this article at the present times.  Harrias  talk 23:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment it's not just about the "25" standard, when I looked at the VVS Laxman article, it was very short, and it seemed to me there to be no reason why the lists of centuries shouldn't be merged into the main article. In short, it's a potential victim of the 3b criterion of what makes a list featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you have a look at Jacques Kallis, which is roughly the same size as Laxman's article. A separate article for list of centuries exists for Kallis, infact an FL. If you feel the article is too short, then what would be the minimum prose size for the main article, so that the list of centuries can be forked out. -- Commander (Ping Me) 10:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's a specific minimum prose size, it's a little subjective. I only made the comment because it felt like you could merge the two at this point and maybe break out the table if VVS's article gets to the size of The Don's (say).  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Vivian Richards and Inzamam-ul-Haq articles are also too small. They have separate pages for "List of centutries", with the former being an FL. -- Commander (Ping Me) 18:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The questions on the reviewers' minds are about this list, not other lists. That's because we're discussing this list right now, not other lists that exist or have passed through FLC. We have other processes to deal with those pages, if necessary. Whether this is an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list is what is up for debate here, and that should be kept in mind. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I had suggested to Vensatry to bring this up to FLC (after addressing issues of prose etc - I haven't had a chance to go through the content yet, so I'm not providing a detailed review). I don't believe that this should fail 3b -- the addition of this content would cause an WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE issue within the main article and therefore it couldn't be reasonably accommodated. Also, I view 3b slightly differently in that I don't think it ought to focus on the amount of content as it exists on the main article as it should on what good quality, sourced content could easily be added to the main article and I believe there's a lot that can be done with reasonably low effort. We shouldn't penalize list creation if interest in a particular article isn't great. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


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