Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Kapil Dev/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 21:11, 2 May 2012.

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Kapil Dev

 * Nominator(s): &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  16:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. It is based upon existing FL, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Anil Kumble. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  16:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question – Before I offer a full review, I must ask about a possible 3b concern. I've seen editors say before that the minimum number of occurances they want to see in lists like this is 25, but this has only 24 five-wicket hauls. Not that I'm worked up over it being one instance shorter than 25, but I'm curious as to where people think the line should be drawn. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm unaware of the minimum figure. I thought the minimum figure was 15 since there was a link to all bowlers who had taken 15+ five-wicket hauls in this template. Almost all FLs had the following phrase, "fewer than 40 bowlers have taken more than 15 five–wicket hauls at International level in their cricketing careers". So I thought 15 would be the minimum figure as more emphasis was made on that. Also I thought this list wouldn't get into trouble as the main article was long enough and Kapil Dev is a highly notable cricketer. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  09:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think it's fine with regard to 3b and certainly wouldn't do the Wikipedia any good if it was merged in Kapil Dev's main article which is massive already. I will review fully in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from  Harrias  talk
 * No problem with regards to 3b; I think the 25 was in connection with century lists rather than five-wicket hauls.


 * In general I think that the prose section of this article is certainly not a "professional standard of writing", and needs a full re-write.
 * My concerns about the prose section of this remain: it reads like a string of bullet points that have been put one after another with no semblence of flow or continuation. More attention needs to be given to presenting the information in an engaging fashion.  Harrias  talk 14:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I made some copyedits/content addition and arranged a few sentences for better flow of presentation. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose given the number of concerns, and the major nature of some of these, I don't feel I have an alternative at the moment but to oppose this list at the moment.  Harrias  talk 19:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with my computer right now, so I'll address the comments in the next few days (am not abandoning the nomination). &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  17:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)  Striking the comment, as I have addressed most of the concerns. &mdash; Vensatry  (Ping me)  11:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed all. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  09:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Image review: All used images appear to be free and properly tagged.  Good raise  14:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


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