Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2020

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After successful nomination of Basshunter discography I'm nominating his videography. According to sources, videography is complete it meets the criteria for a featured list and passed GOCE. Structure is after similar featured lists. Eurohunter (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose citing to the primary source (youtube) instead of a secondary source is suspect. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 23:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose YouTube is not a reliable source. Yes, it proves the videos exist. But where are the sources to show WP:LISTN? Seems to me that the handful of entries which actually have coverage in independent sources could be covered at Basshunter main page. buidhe 03:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official channels at YouTube should be reliable. There is no diffference between linking to official upload on YouTube and official CD release. I'm not sure if it is even possible to have every entry in the list covereted in independent media (I mean even best selling artists). Eurohunter (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • YouTube never was reliable source but official channel were. Eurohunter (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Buidhe. Apart from the Swedish sources, which I can't read, nothing in the refs supports LISTN. - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: Did you noticed answer above? Otherwise I would say vote is incorrect. Eurohunter (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing for now, multiple opposes with no action taken to counter. I agree with them, incidentally- there's so much online journalism out there now that finding someone actually talking about these videos (and therefore showing that the topic is notable), beyond the bare proof that they exist, should be doable. No prejudice against re-nominating once that's done. --PresN 02:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I had no answer so I couldn't do anything. Once again there is no difference between linking to official videos on YouTube and official CD release which are commonly accepted. Eurohunter (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter: Are they, though? The last videography list to be promoted appears to be Jimi Hendrix videography in May 2018. While it does cite a few DVD covers for credits, it mostly uses books and review sites. The ones before it were from 2016 (Taylor Swift videography, Katy Perry videography), and again, mostly cited to music websites/magazines. You're right, there's nothing different between citing a music video on youtube and a music video on a dvd. Neither one proves notability of the subject, only verifies the facts. Please read WP:LISTN, as mentioned above- you need to prove that the subject of "Basshunter videography" is a notable one by showing that non-primary reliable sources talk about it. It's not enough to just prove that the videos exist in the first place. --PresN 22:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: If you look at cite number 44 or 50 in Jimi Hendrix videography it is artificial because what is the point of cite review for technical details included in the table? In addition it links to page in AllMusic instead of review in AllMusic so author and date provided are only for review. Summarizing review data (author and date of review) should be removed from cites as they only cite technical data from AllMusic, not review. Eurohunter (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter: Look, I'm not going to argue with you any more about this. All three opposers and I said the same thing; you are free to disagree all you want but that doesn't make it pass LISTN or FLC. As all 4 editors have told you, citing almost only self-published sources (the first references that aren't to the video/appearance being referenced itself are refs 44-48... out of 48) means that you haven't shown that this topic is notable. I have no doubt that every bit of this list is true. And sure, the video itself proves that truth more clearly than a secondary source. But that's not the point- you also have to prove that it's notable. This is true for every single article on wikipedia; I don't understand how you have been here for a decade without understanding that. Literally all you have to do is add citations to secondary sources (feel free to leave in the primary sources!) and renominate. I'm not going to respond any more to this discussion. --PresN 23:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because,

• Written as prose with a good lead, introducing readers briefly about the ODI format and also accounts important records chronologically.
• The article is comprehensive with all necessary informations related to the ODIs and individual matches and the innings and batter's batting profile for that match in which runs are scored and also provided with citations per WP:RS.
• Have a organised structure of the list table, cosnisting with proper sections and heading per WP:DTT and names are sorted per Sort.
• Complies with WP:MOS.
• The article is stable, as all information are well tabled and with citations, there is very little scope of edit wars.

Other than fulfilling the criteria, want to bring to notice that the article has been here since 2015 and other related articles like as listed in the (see also) section are now FL article, and as most crierion are satisfied, i think the article has a scope to get listed as FL. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

• Any reason why "Deepti Sharma" does not have a reference?
• I would recommend adding ALT text to the image.
• Any reason why this part (since then there have been over 4,000 ODIs.) does not have a citation?
• This is a rather long sentence: (On 16 December the same year, Australian women cricketer Belinda Clark broke the 200 runs mark and set the highest individual score of unbeaten 229 runs in One Day Internationals against Denmark at MIG Club Ground, Mumbai which remained unbroken for almost 17 years till Indian batsman Rohit Sharma broke the record on 13 November 2014 scoring a 264 runs against Sri Lanka on 13 November 2014 at Eden Gardens in Kolkata, which remains the highest individual score in the ODIs but Clark remains the highest individual scorer as a captain and her score remains as the highest individual score in Women's World Cup.) I'd recommend breaking it up to avoid having such a long sentence.

Everything else looks good. I know absolutely nothing about cricket so I can only focus on the prose. Once my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Fixed all the issues, alt text added, citations added for both, long sentence broken. Dey subrata (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything so quickly. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*"having a limit in the number of overs" => "having a limit to the number of overs" There is no hyphen in List A "Before breaking the 200 runs mark, the highest ODI score was 194 held by Pakistani cricketer Saeed Anwar, scored on 21 May 1997 against India at M. A. Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai.[" - I genuinely can't see any reason to mention this in the lead "Australian women cricketer" => "Australian female cricketer" The sentence starting "on December 16" is insanely long and needs breaking up. I would re-write it as "On 16 December 1997, Australian female cricketer Belinda Clark broke the 200-run mark and set the highest individual score in One Day Internationals of 229 not out against Denmark at MIG Club Ground, Mumbai. This record remained unbroken for almost 17 years until Indian batsman Rohit Sharma broke the record on 13 November 2014." "He scored a 264 runs" => "He scored 264 runs" "the highest individual score in the ODIs" => "the highest individual score in ODIs" I would also start a new sentence at that point and re-write is as "Clark's score remains the highest achieved by a captain as well as the highest individual score in the Women's World Cup." "Belinda Clark's 21 years old record" => "Belinda Clark's 21-year old record" You also don't need to wikilink Clark again "thus set a new highest individual score in women's ODIs" => "thus setting a new highest individual score in women's ODIs" This sentence is also far too long and needs breaking up. Have a full stop after women's ODIs "Kerr is the youngest player to score a double century" - in women's cricket only or in both women's and men's? Refs at the end of that sentence are not in numerical order "New Zealander Martin Guptill is the highest individual scorer in any ICC Tournaments" => "New Zealander Martin Guptill is the highest individual scorer in any ICC tournament" " with unbeaten 237 runs" => " with 237 not out" "against West Indies" => "against the West Indies" "in 2015 Cricket World Cup" => "in the 2015 Cricket World Cup" Don't need to wikilink Rohit Sharma again in the last sentence Photo caption: "Rohit Sharma, with 264 runs is the highest individual scorer in ODI history." => "Rohit Sharma is the highest individual scorer in ODI history with a score of 264" No reason to have "not out" in bold above the table Need a key or something to explain strike rate. I know a bit about cricket but have no idea what strike rate is. In the third "see also" entry, cricket should not have a capital C There is no K in Cricinfo (applies to about 30 of the references) Hope this helps - ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @ChrisTheDude: All the above issues fixed. Coming to Anwar's 194, first its worth mentioning in the lead because 200 runs mark is considered as a rare accomplishment and a bench mark, very few a people had done so far, that too after 40 years of the game, thats why its important to know who and what was the score before 200 runs record. Actually 180s or 190s itself are also rare acomplishment in cricket, any score above 150 is a tough thing to do in a single innings, and 180s and 190s are toughest thats why very few player have done this and the list includes not only 200s but also 190s and 180s too, these are rare feats. Secondly, mainly men's cricket is followed around the world, (even a test match which is 5 days long and comperatively very slow game and longer innings game have more following than women cricket match) and the first batsman Sachin Tendulkar to score a 200 runs, came after 13 years of Anwar's 194, so cricket enthusiat and fans, would love to know this important facts, actually most cricket enthusiat and followers know about that inning when Anwar almost there to touch the 200 runs barrier, considered as one of the greatest innings in the ODI history, its a vital information. I think I missed Charles coventry's record, which I added now so to give a clear picture on the importance of Anwar's record. Finally, yes Kerr is the youngest in both men's and women's, so i added few words to define it. thank you again for the review. Dey subrata (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] You haven't quite actioned all my comments. I can still see "unbeaten 229 runs", which I said needed to be "229 not out", "highest individual score in Women's World Cup", which I said needed to be "highest individual score in the Women's World Cup", "21-years old record", which should be "21-year old record", etc. Please could you re-check all my points above? Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @ChrisTheDude: WAit wait, its due to edit conflict all the edit were erased. Dey subrata (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:OK, with regard to the bit about Anwar's score of 194, I acknowledge what you say, but based on that I would change it a bit. I would start that paragraph by saying "The first score of 180 in an ODI was achieved by Viv Richard in 1984" and then give the rest of the information about that, then say "Saaed Anwar broke the record in 1997 with the first score higher than 190" and then give more info about that. Then talk about Clark being the first to score 200. Does that make sense? BTW on the subject of Sir Viv, he is listed in the table twice and has a different forename each time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @ChrisTheDude: I think resolved now, but "C" in cricket used in the link because its specifying the game, Cricket, used a proper noun so capital is used, where as in other links its uses in phrase, One Day International cricket is used so small letter. And I will change the "unbeaten" runs, but don't find any reason why, its not a journalistic word used here, its a term of cricket, we use "unbeaten" when someone remains not out. Not a journalistic word used, for example "follow on", "appeal", "snick", "square cut or cut", "beamer" even "silly" is a cricketing term, looks journalistic but not at all when used in cricket. Dey subrata (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] The article title is Lists of cricket records, therefore it should appear in the "See also" section as Lists of cricket records. There is no reason to change the title to have a capital C (or to take the s off "lists") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Ok I am changing it. Coming to above point, the question will be raised why not 170 or 160, we need to consider a bench mark, its 200, so before 200 what is the score thats it, other wise, after a century thats 100, every number is significant in cricket. Just like why hat-trick which is just 3 goals is considered one of big achivement in football, because its because very few people can do it, right. Similary 200 run is very tough I must say near impossible thing to do in ODIs as there are 300 balls in ODI, and one idividual scoring 200+ runs means he need to face atleast 150 balls thats 25 overs, which is hell lot of balls and near impossible, you can see those few who did it are in recent years as the introduction of T20 happened, the strike rate of players seems to have increased due to different rule change and faster game which made it possible, otherwise, the great name that you have taken Sir Vivian Richards, he is that guy who have highest strike rate in Test(50+)(if you don't know, its a 5 days long game and on average 90 overs are thrown, on an average 200-300 runs are scored in an innings, strike rate is very low, its a different format) but that legend did maintained a 50+ strike rate which is tough, but Viv Richards could not score 200 runs in ODIs, and trust me he is one of the few Greatest batsman the cricket has ever seen, and he had the ability, so you know how tough the 200 runs to score. so yes I think its better to consider 200 as bench mark rather than any other score. Dey subrata (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] OK, I am not going to labour that point. I will see what others think. Other points: "held by Pakistani cricketer" - better to say Pakistani batsman, it's obvious he's a cricketer, given that the article is about cricket I will change. "Australian women cricketer" - still needs to be changed to "Australian female cricketer". Actually "Australian female player" might be better as per the above. ICC don't use "female" always use "women". "Australian women cricketer" is not grammatically correct, because "women" is plural, so you can't describe her as "women". If you prefer not to use "female" then the correct word to use would be "woman", not "women" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] "In men's cricket Zimbabwean cricketer" - "cricket....cricketer" doesn't sound very good - change "cricketer" to batsman will change "managed to equal Anwar's record" => "equalled Anwar's record" will change "but failed to reach 200 runs mark" - well obviously if he scored 194 he didn't reach 200, there is no need to say this its because he was not out at that time, That doesn't matter. You don't need to say "he scored 194, but didn't score 200" because it's totally obvious that if he scored 194 he didn't score 200. It's completely redundant language. It's like saying "my son is 5'10" tall but he isn't 6' tall" - the second part is redundant because it's totally obvious from the first part -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] "after breaking Anwar's 194 runs record" - also unnecessary ok will remove. Refs after "age of 17" are not in the correct order ok will fix Same with the refs after "2015 Cricket World Cup" ok will fix HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @ChrisTheDude: fixed. The above two cases, can we add.."but failed to reach 200 runs mark as Zimbabwe reached the targeted score before he could achieve the feat" But they didn't win, they lost :-) You can't imply that he would have scored 200 had the innings not ended, because it had gone on for another over he could have been out for 195 or 196. It would be OK to say "Charles Coventry equalled Anwar's record against Bangladesh at Queens Sports Club ground in Bulawayo when Zimbabwe's innings ended with him on a score of 194 not out" That makes the point that he was "stranded" on 194 but doesn't imply that he would definitely have gone on to reach 200 if the innings had been longer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Yup, they played the first innings :-) Dey subrata (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @ChrisTheDude: Please check, ok now? Dey subrata (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] For Belinda clark, what to do?? it really looks odd in cricket, female player, never heard someone saying such or in any article, always used women cricketer or in women cricket a player who bat is called "batter". Please let me know. Dey subrata (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] "Woman player" would be OK, but you can't say "women player" because "women" is plural, so you can't say "a women (player)". See for example this, which refers to the "Australian Woman Player of the Year" award -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Yup correct, it should be "woman". Dey subrata (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small tweak and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your recent edit making sense, its more clear now. Dey subrata (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all editors here, can you please consider to put your comments here. It will be helpful for promotion. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• Is "one innings" grammatically correct?
• Make sure the table has scope rows per MOS:ACCESS

Honestly can't see any other problems. Very well-written, should be an FL in no-time (sorry it's taken so long). Great job to you! – zmbro _(talk) 03:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Yes one or an innings is correct, its a singular term and also a plural term. Fixed table with scope row. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was just wanted to be sure. The scope rows are currently reaching the first 3 cols (I think that's because of the way it's coded). Just the first or second col would suffice. – zmbro _(talk) 03:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro:I think first and 3rd will be better, as its about highest individual score. Fixed accordingly. Dey subrata (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Idk it seems odd to me to have two separate cols be bolded like that. I'd leave it just as the first col. – zmbro _(talk) 04:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Ok, fine. Kept in first column only. Dey subrata (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All good now. Happy to support – zmbro _(talk) 04:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• May I ask, what made you draw the line at 180 for this list? Further, the ODI double centuries list has become totally redundant. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Thank for your comment.Because of the sheer number of centuries scored, we can't include all, it will be ridiculously long article, 1000s of centuries scored. Secondly, as this is about highest individual scores, a sample space of around 25 highest centuries taken in this case which lead 180 to be base line and 180 is also helpful to keep a constant and logical lead for the article and also not much centuries scored above 180 mark. It can be very easily understandable from this- If you just consider to reduce the base line to next 10 digit, i.e, 170, you will find there are 25 more centuries with in 170 to 180, which will be unnecessarily long. And yes I agree with that, the List of double century is redundant. Dey subrata (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that's not my point – I'm asking what made you fix the 'cutoff' at 180? Also, I see that you've included scores from Women's ODI. Surely, that doesn't belong here because both formats are not comparable. —Vensatry _(talk) 15:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: I have discussed it in the second line, if you had read it. This summarizes highest individual scores, not a article which shows list of centuries in ODIs. For this we need to mark a base line and need a minimum sample size to represent the statistics to summarize the topic. Here the sample size taken is 25 which lead to 180 as base line. Secondly, if we push below 180 say 170, there are around 20-25 centuries within this small sample size, almost the same size of centuries between 180 and 264, which will be meaningless to add, its goes increasing with every 10 digit. A sample size of 25 is more than enough. With that I have added the progression of record, so that no question arises on how record progressed over the time along with dicussing in the lead too. Secondly, as I have said we are discussing about highest runs in ODIs, we are not gender differentiating or comapring. ODIs in both women and men case is same, every rules and regulation are applied same. Its the same format of cricket played. Along with its a unique article also as fist 200 runs attempt in any ODIs (men or women) was a woman and and was record highest runs for almost 20 years. Thus its very precisely sticking to the topic and gives more clear picture of the topic "highest individual scores". Along with this, it also summarises how the record progress from the 200 runs mark to 264 over the years. And the lead of the article also describes the same very clearly. Dey subrata (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even understand the question? Anyways, about WODIs the fact that men's and women's format follow the same set of rules/regulations doesn't matter because it doesn't make sense to compare both formats unless both genders get to compete against each other. ODI is DIFFERENT from WODI. Otherwise, why do we need articles on Women's Test cricket and Women's ODI in the first place? Going by your logic, the following articles are redundant: Women's Test cricket records, Women's Test cricket records, Centuries in Women's Test cricket, Centuries in Women's One Day International cricket, Centuries in Women's Twenty20 International cricket, et al? —Vensatry _(talk) 07:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case, you don't follow the game: [3], [4], [5] —Vensatry _(talk) 07:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: I understand your question very well. Didn't you able to get answer to.."what made you draw the line at 180?" I have discussed that clearly, I don't think it needs any more clarity on it.

(1). Dear, I follow cricket very much, I want to let you know your example factually wrong as women test is different format from men's test match. Women's test match is of 4 days while the men's is of 5 days game. Thus a seperate article is necessary for the different formats. So such a point does not count here. Here both ODIs are of same format.

(2). List of centuries in women odi or T20 is similarly necessary the way, list of centuries in world cup, or champions trophy are created because it keeps record of different tournaments not different formats. So such list does not become redundant. Secondly, we are talking about highest individual scores which comprises of few highest scores which shows top highest scores in this format and how the highest individual score progressed over time. AND all those lists that you have added summarizes every single centuries in a specific tournament not a format. So this article is totally different from those lists, by topic and by structure.

(3).I don't follow news article much, but I follow primary and most reliable sources, this is the way world cricket body ICC 1 specifically describes such It was the first double-century in one-day international cricket, by a man or a woman, if it were different format, they should not have publish record as the first 200 in ODI, Wisden Cricketers' Almanack 2 described, She was the first player, male or female, to make a double-century in a one-day international, this is how Cricket Australia 3 described Belinda Clark became the first person to score a one-day international double century., even news meadia; this is how The Statesman 3 described Belinda Clark of Australia was the first batter in the entire world to score 200 runs in an ODI innings. Its many more if I go, from ICC to reliable source, everyone describes it as highest or first irrespective of both in ODI not in WODI.

Finally, the describe about ODIs not men's or women's. Already mixed gender cricket started, so highest records are highest i the format is same. And the lead of the article clearly describe about when who created the record. It gives a very clear picture or the records and don't give a scope of any confusion. Thank you.Dey subrata (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point very well. I'm asking what made you arbitrarily fix the cutoff at 180 (i.e. 25 innings). Have you previously discussed this at WT:CRIC (or any other related Wikiproject)? Frankly, it would've at least made some sense had this been named "List of 180 plus scores in ODIs" – similar to List of bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in Test cricket (an FL) and List of bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in One Day International cricket. Second, taking into account the rate at which such "high" scores are made in ODIs, we might have to raise the "bar" (which now stands at 180) periodically. Your point about men's Tests and women's Tests being different is not relevant here because I believe we're talking about ODIs Vs WODIs (I'd only brought that up as an example). But then, WODI differs from ODI in terms of ball weight (and size), (shorter) boundaries, field restrictions et al. In any case, it surely doesn't make any sense to have both stats in a single table as there are plenty of issues. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well we are talking about formats, not about how much boundaries and weight, there are many cricket stadium which have very small boudaries like that of NewZealand's Eden park and some have very big boundaries like of MCG (highly variable thing, its always mentioned "generally" it should be this and that not a mandatory) We are talking about basics of formats. Most importantly, I don't think as long as ODIs is concerned, and the record is about highest individual score and as long as ICC and Wisden and relaible news medias saying it as highest and first in ODIs, its not a problem in anyway. Now coming to real issues, we can move the page from List of highest individual scores in ODIs to List of individual scores more than 180 runs in ODIs but before that I have a question. Where is the difference between the two, both are describing the highest scores. Secondly, in the latter case, we need to emphasize on 180. It will be absurd. (The following table lists scores of 180 or higher.) on the top of the table actually telling you there are many centuries but as the list is about "highest scores", scores upto 180 is taken. Secondly, in the first table the question immediately comes, then how can one know about the progression happened, thus the progression table is placed. Everything is cristal clear now as I have added the progression table. I want to give you another example, "List of centuries in ODIs" and "List of highest individual scores in ODIs" what will you expect in these lists. In the first you will expect all centuries (which does not exist due to same reason) and in the second you will ofcorse expect few top scores (thats why top 25 scores are mentioned). Lastly, I think for this table there can be two case, keep a minimum of scores(which already exist) or scores above 170 (as 171 was first score above 150 barrier, but it will need 25 more centuries to be added). Which one do you think is more feasible, I think the minimum of scores which justify the topic.Dey subrata (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, can you explain why should we have separate articles on Men's ODI and Women's ODI records (instead of having them under one article as per your argument)? As for "highest" qualifier, it's going to be subjective. I'd personally fix the cutoff at 200 because the figure is objective and is considered a "milestone" (even in Tests) in a player's career. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First we are talking about this particular article, my argument is specifically and precisely for this article and the argument, is given in bold above. Now as you asked about thsoe articles, this article talks about only one record of ODI cricket out of hundreds of different records, where as the articles that you have mentioned include various records in ODI in different formats, so there is no comparison between those articles with this one. Secondly, an article can be unique to other articles, and any reader who will go through the lead will have no problem in understanding the build up of records, its chronologically described along with mentioning the required information in the box to identify which score is from which tournament. Coming to your second point, I already have discussed that in my last reply(above), still want to add with that, it also gives a perspective to see how many players were able reach so close to 200 runs without reaching or breaking it. Now as you mentioned 200 runs about test, in cricket indeed 200 runs is an achivement so is a 100. In test 200 runs is not an extraordinary achievments, good achievment for sure, as it can often be observed being acored by test batsmen in their career, it can be more evidently assured from the fact that around 50 test batsmen have atleast 3 double centuries, so its not a big deal in Test, in test 400 is the extraordinary echievement and records of highest runs generally kept from 300 around 30 scores are kept. Similarly, in ODI 200 runs is the extraordinary, but the bench mark cannot be 200 then, it should be below that, thats why 180 kept and around 25 scores. I don't see that we need to keep banging on this, the lead is good the body is good along with the progression. I hope you agree. Dey subrata (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

• Should this list be merged with List of One Day International cricket double centuries?
  • Well that list is actually redundant, merge or delete any one of the case.
    • @Harrias: IMO, yes. Drawing the line at 200 (the figure is NOT subjective) is the best way to go about in these lists. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "One Day International cricket (ODI cricket) is played between international cricket teams which are Full members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) as well as the top six Associate and Affiliate members." This is only true for men's cricket, not women's cricket.
• "ODI cricket is List A cricket, so statistics and records set in ODI matches also count toward List A records." This seems superfluous.
  • Any response to this point? Harrias ^talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes ODIs counted against List A records. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a lot of false titles in the article, please rewrite to avoid these. Some useful information is provided in this article.
  • This is unresolved. Harrias ^talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please specify which one you need to be fixed, you are directing me to a third party links. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a review towards Featured status, not a peer review, or copy edit forum. I have provided a link which identifies what false titles are, and how to avoid them. Other resources are available via Google. Harrias ^talk 22:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Harrias I've read that article earlier and did not find such false titles, the kind of nouns or adjective described in the article. Also read other articles. But if you are talking about "Pakistani" or New Zealander" then these are not false titles as people of Pakistan are called Pakistani and it goes on other country or you are talking about something else. Dey subrata (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "In men's cricket Charles Coventry equalled Anwar's record after 12 years when Zimbabwe's innings ended with him on a score of 194 not out against Bangladesh at Queens Sports Club ground in Bulawayo." This sentence needs breaking up, it is trying to do far too much.
• "In ODIs, the.." This whole article is about ODIs, I don't think this clarification is necessary.
• The prose is generally very clunky, there are a lot of busy sentences that need breaking up more for ease of reading.
  • The prose quality is still low, featuring a lot of repetition and busy sentences. Harrias ^talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Broken sentences and remove repetition of ODIs whereever possible, only kept in 2 places where if removed looks odd. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed all above.

Table

• Per MOS:DTT add table captions.
• Kerr's strike-rate needs two decimal places.
• Per MOS:FLAG, the use of flags in the venue column is non-compliant.
• There is a lot of overlinking of place names in the Venue column; Melbourne, Kolkata etc don't need links.
  • This is unresolved. Harrias ^talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no repeat link now in the table, every single place is linked once. I are firm follower of MOS:OVERLINK, but all other FL cricket lists linked the places in tables even repeated links. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "MCG, Melbourne, Melbourne" Is clunky. Melbourne Cricket Ground will suffice. Similar for "National Stadium, Karachi, Karachi"
  • This is unresolved. Harrias ^talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, fixed, i thought you were talking about table 2. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed all above.

Source review

• "Clark's score remains the highest achieved by a captain" The reference provided does not support this claim.
  • This is unresolved. The sources provided demonstrate that she was captain, but not that her score is the highest made by a captain. Harrias ^talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3 scorers have more runs than her. I have added other 2 highest scorer links (Sharma and Guptill) where its written they're not captain, in her links its mention she is captain and Kerr was not. Thus no possibilities of confusion. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:SYNTH that is not sufficient. Harrias ^talk 22:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias:, removed all four individual players link, added links for highest scores by captain. Dey subrata (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "as well as the highest individual score in the Women's World Cup" The reference provided only supports this "as of 2017".
  • This was me being an idiot, as there hasn't been a Women's World Cup since 2017. *eyeroll* Harrias ^talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to curse urself man, we all learn here, if u are from US, let me tell you I have zero idea about baseball or nfl records n tournament, but thats not make idiot. Chill, everyone learn new things everyday.
      • I literally attended the 2017 Women's World Cup. Harrias ^talk 22:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • :) Harrias, I'll better not to comment then. Dey subrata (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't just use web addresses for publication titles; ref #4 should have India Today as the work and Living Media India Limited as the publisher. Check the rest too.
  • This is unresolved for refs #7, #12 and #24. Harrias ^talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ref 7 is of Cricket Australia (Australian Cricket Board), they are not a publishing house, so should be kept as work and website. ref 12 fixed, website based media, kept accordingly. ref 24 fixed. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed all above.

Okay, that's a few things to get going with on a skim read; I can provide a more detailed review once these have been addressed. Harrias ^talk 09:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Addressed your issues. Dey subrata (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded inline above. Harrias ^talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Responded above. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for poor prose, which is far from the required "professional standards of writing". Harrias ^talk 16:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are opposing for previously said "false titles" in the prose then as I replied, I don't see any false title in the prose. The prose is written similar to all other cricketing record lists. I asked also which of the words look like false title, and I don't find any wikipedia policies of false title also. Dey subrata (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a copyeditor to do copyedit in the prose. He also did not find any obvious false title. I don't understand, we all here for the same purpose, if you have seen anything wrong you could have done that correct yourself also. Where is the harm? Now as the copyeditor gone through the prose, I don't think there exists any thing by which it can be called as "poor prose" and saying far from professional level is bit harsh to me. Dey subrata (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are some more specific points from the first paragraph alone, plus an example of a false title.

• "One Day Internationals cricket..." This is not grammatically correct.
• "Men's ODI cricket is played between teams which are Full members of the ICC as well as the top six Associate and Affiliate members." This is a clunky formulation, and should be reworked to avoid the use of "as well as".
• "In women's cricket the ODI is.." This is not grammatically correct.
• "..top-10 ranked.." Should not have a hyphen.
• "Unlike test matches, ODIs.." "Test matches" should be capitalised.
• Reference #1 does not support all the information given.
• "ODI cricket is List A cricket, so statistics and records set in ODI matches also count toward List A records." This sentence is still awkward and superfluous, as I noted above, and has been ignored. It is also unreferenced.
• "by Pakistani batsman Saeed Anwar" This is a false title, as it places two noun phrases together: "Pakistan batsman" "Saeed Anwar".

I am not going to go through the entire prose and point everything out; it is the job of the nominator to have an article is a fit state for Featured review, not for reviewers to drag rubbish up to standard. Harrias ^talk 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, all the above corcerns are fixed. Dey subrata (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Giants2008, can you atleast do the source review, its about 5 months now. Dey subrata (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this nomination has stalled, and Vensatry and Harrias expressed some major concerns in their reviews. I'm getting busier in non-Wikipedia matters at the moment and am not sure if I'll have time to do a source review, but we need to see that those two reviewers are satisfied with your changes as we're leaning towards no consensus territory at the moment. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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