Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries/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 The Rambling Man 19:37, 8 August 2009.

List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries

 * Notified: WikiProject Cricket

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it was promoted way before our 3b criterion discussion, has MOS breaches, has insufficient sourcing, has no alt text (!), an incorrectly sorting table (by name), ISO dates rather than dts etc etc. Beyond the 3b, it's just showing its age. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment If this list were delisted due to 3b, where would it be merged (if at all)? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * List of first-class cricket records? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Even if this is delisted, I think the table should be fixed up, since that will be merged into the records list. I can't make sense of the dates column; does "1994-06-03, 06" mean that this happened on June 3 and June 6? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suppose that it means it took place between June 3 and June 6. Takes a long time to score a quadruple century in cricket you know!  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, well then I'll get to it. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not too sure. For example, we have "1930-01-04, 6" (skipping 5) but "1948-12-16, 17, 18" (nothing skipped). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I imagine that'll be three days. Most Test matches last five days, so I'd guess that one was scored from 16 through 18 December 1948 (to use American parlance).  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the 1930 match had a rest-day, see this link, hence why nothing on the 5th... I imagine it's a bit complex for a non-cricketer...!  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove – Even if 3b isn't taken into account, this clearly doesn't meet present FL standards.
 * External jumps are all over the place. There's one in the lead, ten in the table, and one in a note; these should all be converted to inline citations.
 * The lead is entirely composed of stubby one-sentence paragraphs, and could stand to be greatly expanded.
 * All of the notes need references.
 * The sorting, date formatting, and alt text issues TRM pointed out are still present.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 21:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist Fails 3b, and is not up to par even if it didn't. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.