Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of English Twenty20 International cricketers/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by User:Matthewedwards 22:02, 13 July 2008.

List of English Twenty20 International cricketers

 * Note: Notifed are Jguk and WikiProject Cricket. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This list currently fails Cr. 2(insufficient lead), Cr.4(no section headings), and Cr.6(empty cells in the table) of WP:WIAFL. On top of that, this list relies solely on one source and was last updated in September of 2007.-- Crzycheetah 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist per nom. -- Scorpion0422 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding Criteria 6. There are empty cells in the tables because players who have never scored a run cannot have high scores or an average, and likewise players who have never bowled cannot have bowling averages or best bowling figures. I'll put dashes in the box to make it better, would that suffice? SGGH speak! 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another comment CricInfo is probably the most reliable source for cricket information in the world, so there are worse sources to have only one of. SGGH speak! 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And a further comment I've also expanded the lead. SGGH speak! 06:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments Dashes are fine. A Key section is needed for all statistical abbreviations and an explanation of "*" in the "HS" column. As for the references, where did the info in the lead come from? In that Cricinfo page, all I see is a table with 11 columns of stats while in this article, there are 14 columns. My question is where did the additional 3 columns come from?-- Crzycheetah 08:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Information from the lead is from the other articles, but I shall shortly cite it for you. I'll add a section explaining the abbreviations. I'll try to write it in prose but would it be better in a list? I'll check the coloumns too. SGGH speak! 10:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I would do if my university connection is messing up my attempts to get into CricInfo at the moment. SGGH speak! 10:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I much rather see abbr. in the table and a Key section where those abbr. are explained. For example, see List of Philadelphia Eagles first-round draft picks. Right now, the table is too widened.-- Crzycheetah 20:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added all of the abbr. into the table and written the key. Wt is this   (talk)   16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC) -- Crzycheetah 01:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)  Wt is this   (talk)   18:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC) This is a separate page, so there should be separate sources for the info provided in this page.-- Crzycheetah 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (→)As I already stated, there is no such info in the link provided in this page. Links with such info should be provided in this page.-- Crzycheetah 09:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More concerns
 * What is Maiden(s) ? Why are they listed when everyone has 0 of them?
 * Where did you find how many innings one played? No sources available.
 * What is the difference between batting runs and bowling runs ? Where did you find how many bowling runs one had?
 * References are missing for the "Balls" column as well.
 * Images are also needed.
 * Reply to concerns:
 * I have put what a maiden is.
 * On CricInfo it says how many innings someone has played.
 * I have tried to explain fully in the columns what the runs are. It also says on CricInfo how many runs conceded.
 * On CricInfo it says how many balls someone has bolwed.
 * I have added a picture, but what other pictures could i put on?.
 * Could you provide the CrivInfo page that says how many balls were bowled and how many innings players played? The CricInfo page that is cited here does not have such information. As for the images, it's fine now, but a player's image would improve this page a lot.-- Crzycheetah 22:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The CricInfo page with balls bowled and innings is on the players personal page. Wt is this   (talk)   17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice weather today!
 * Do i need to put every personal page on this? If people want to find out that it is true they could go to the page.  Wt is this   (talk)   19:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All information should be cited in this page. You have to provide links, so that readers could click on them to verify.-- Crzycheetah 22:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the other information is on the players personal page and there is only a link to the list of players for that information. Wt is this   (talk)   09:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the link to the pages. There still isn't a "balls" column but it says how many overs the bowler has had and you can work it out from that. Wt is this   (talk)   16:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, but I can't "work it out". Could you add an explanation on how to find out the "balls" from the "overs".-- Crzycheetah 23:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have put what it is. Wt is this   (talk)   13:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pity if this can't be saved, but the lead is totally inadequate. Do we need to contact more previous contributors to get this shaped up? TONY   (talk)  03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to leave it open for another week, considering the article has been edited in response to this FLRC. I'll poke the Wikiproject and leave a message on the talk page. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Let's give it a week or so. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested on WT:CRIC that the article as of now still needs "a lot of work" to bring it up to featured quality. However, looking at the article and the featured list criteria, apart from the table not being sortable I can't really see where it falls down:
 * The standard of prose seems fine.
 * The lead section does introduce the subject and define the scope and inclusion criteria of the list.
 * The list is comprehensive (ie lists all major statistics of all English T20I cricketers).
 * It is easy to navigate.
 * I think (but haven't studied this extensively) it complies with the MOS.
 * It seems (to me) to be visually appealing enough.
 * It is not the subject of edit warring.
 * The page is not that long, but I don't see why it should be. After all, it has links to all the relevant terms, such as cricket, England cricket team, Twenty20 and Twenty20 International, and if people want to know more about these things they can just follow the links. Maybe I have simply not thought of certain deficiencies which exist, in which case I would be grateful if these areas were pointed out. On the other hand, maybe my assessment is accurate and the article is essentially up to featured quality standard. Could some other people please give a comment on this? Juwe (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The table's appearance might be improved if the figures were right-aligned, as they are in the Cricinfo tables. This is the natural alignment for all numeric lists. It would be a pain in the bum to do, but it might be worth trying (first, experiment a bit with, say, the Runs Scored column). Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC) -- Crzycheetah 07:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Something about the cricketers should be mentioned in the lead. Something like who is the most popular among them and why, or mention something unique they have done during their careers.
 * The explanations in the Key section should be footnoted from the appropriate places.
 * The references should be cited from the appropriate columns, as well.


 * When my colleagues' issues are resolved, this looks like a retain. TONY   (talk)  07:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tried to put the links to the sections. Tell me what you think.  Wt is this   (talk)   19:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify Crzycheetah, are you saying that the explanations in the Key section should be moved from there to the References section (via appropriately positioned tags)? Juwe (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those explanations are not in their place right now. They should prefereably be moved to a new Footnotes section using ref label and note label templates.-- Crzycheetah 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.