Wikipedia:Peer review/List of cricketers by number of international five wicket hauls/archive1

List of cricketers by number of international five wicket hauls
I've listed this article for peer review because list of 5 wicket hauls is usually checked on by cricket fans. I believe that the article is ready for Featured list submission, if recommended by the peer reviewer

Thanks, Kalyan (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is some great work! Please see my comments below:
 * Images need alt text
 * Image captions need references
 * Both tables need a title and a ref (see List of international cricket centuries by David Warner for what I am talking about)
 * Source: Cricinfo[26] and Source: Cricinfo [c] to be removed and refs added to table title
 * Women's table needs ndashes between the years (as done in the men's table)
 * Women's table column headers to be replaced with Women's Test cricket, Women's One Day International cricket and Women's Twenty20 International
 * References - format needs to be consist especially around ESPNcricinfo, my preference is "publisher=ESPNcricinfo" and only link the first time.
 * have bagged five wicket hauls in a Test Try to avoid encyclopedic language liked bagged.
 * The first player to record a five wicket haul dash needed between five and wicket. Check for every instance
 * in a test innings Capital T for Test as per WP:CRIC
 * was Aussie Billy Midwinter use Australian
 * As of 2018, 150 cricketers use Template:As of
 * first five wicket haul in ODI cricket spell out ODI
 * five wicket haul in T20I spell out T20I
 * Anne Palmer (cricketer) and pipe required
 * Jamshedpur in 1995[28]. ref goes after the full stop
 * In the same match where Jim Laker captured all wickets in the innings, he captured 19 wickets in the match, the most wickets ever captured by a bowler in a test match. Removed from women's section
 * The last paragraph is taken verbatim from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket and is too detailed for this list. A summarty is required stating that Anisa Mohammed is leading overall.
 * I also think that because we are comparing formats, an explanation is required on what each is format and when each format began.
 * This still needs some work before going to WP:FLC. Good move coming here first.
 * Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Ian, Thanks for the extensive feedback. I've incorporated all the feedback. Can you take a look at it one more time. Kalyan (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've done some general copyediting in the article. The main point from me is that the WP:LEAD should summarise the article. Instead, it just seems to introduce the concept of cricket, and the different formats available. This sort of introduction, if necessary, should be placed elsewhere, and the lead changed to reflect the key points of the article. Harrias talk 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No one's responded since February 2019. Any more work to be done here?  I'm Aya Syameimaru!  I 文々. 新聞  22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have some general suggestions. How these relate to requirements to meet a "quality" level I'm not so sure, but they're general suggestions about how to improve the quality of the article anyway:


 * the addition of references to the images means that the text references start at 6 on the first line. This is quite odd;
 * the images spread a long way down the page and, on browser windows which are not super-wide, move the table below them. There must be a better way to handle the addition of the images - perhaps a gallery or simply choosing less of them?
 * one impact of this is that they key for the table is never on my screen at the same time as the table. Even when I maximise the screen width this is the case. Perhaps the detail in the men's cricket and women's cricket sections is too much - see a point below about the level of headings we might move to;
 * the second half of the first paragraph seems to be editorialising (or at least opinion). Are there any sources which will support it?
 * if it's kept, 3 should be three in the last sentence of the first paragraph;
 * there's an awful lot of detail about forms of cricket in the lead and not a lot about people who have taken five-wicket hauls in international cricket;
 * the last paragraph of the lead isn't really in context and will become very dated;
 * in the tables, I'm not a fan of using colour to represent anything - I'd rather just use symbols. For current players, it may be easier to put the date as 2014– and add a key symbol for current player after that - these need updating annually otherwise and some are out of date;
 * for the players who have also played for an ICC team a note would probably be more effective than adding it to the teams column;
 * for me, a dash would be more suitable than the capitalised N/A in the table;
 * I would reorder the table so that the total is the first of the numerical columns. I would also consider whether or not the number of 10wm are actually needed. My gut feeling is that it simply confuses the matter, especially when the data are in their current order;
 * I'd move the "last updated" date above the table and use the appropriate template;
 * there is an awful lot of unnecessary markup in the tables that can be removed;
 * personally I'm unconvinced that using dynamic lists from cricinfo as major references - for example to count the number of cricketers who have done something - isn't original research;
 * the ICC hall of fame element should be removed. It is distracting from the purpose of the table;
 * I might consider whether a level two heading of List of most five-wicket hauls and then two level three headings for men's and women's cricket might not be better;
 * each player could have a reference (CI I presume) in a final column in the table;
 * neither of the nav boxes at the foot of the page include this list; they should either be removed or the list added to one or both of the nav boxes.


 * As I say, this isn't about a set of criteria, but about the article. I'm not sure that a better cut off point wouldn't be 20 or 25 five wicket hauls.


 * I'm quite happy to do the work on the tables at least if anyone would like me to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)