Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted 01:27, 21 February 2008.

List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar[edit]

Self nomination I've based this article on the same lines of List of Test cricket triple centuries, an FL in itself. I've checked for factual accuracy and feel that it is a nicely-written article. However, if there are any minor errors, please do elaborate so that I can promptly address them. Thank you, reviewers! Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk)
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey, good start, I have some comments which, despite their possible inclusion in the FL you've described above, I think should be addressed before I can support.

Thank you Mspraveen (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a former Indian batsman with 34 Test centuries, coming second to him along with Ricky Ponting and Brian Lara..."
    • "coming second to him"? is second to him?
    • This could infer that Ponting and Lara are second equal with Gavaskar, is that what you mean?  Done
        • Indeed, but you now need to heed WP:CITE to ensure the references are placed appropriately, i.e. immediately to the right of punctuation where possible. I'd place all citations at the end of the sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Remove the full stop in the image caption, per the WP:MOS.
    • As per WP:MOS, complete sentences end with a period symbol, isn't it?
      • My apologies - a complete sentence takes the full stop, you're right! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make the (as of January 2008) the start of the sentence with no parentheses. Done
  • There's a Not out article you could link to for your explanation of asterisks. Done
  • I'd prefer to see a Notes column for the references in the table rather than force the citations to be in the score column.
    • I created a # column and set the references within this itself. It fitted in perfectly, what say?
  • I'm really not keen on the in-line linking to the test scorecards, but I won't oppose on this alone. I'd like to think of another way of doing this...
    • I felt that this would be appropriate as the corresponding Test scorecard can be viewed instantly.
  • The dates need to be written out properly, the ISO format is unfriendly. The {{dts2}} template should help with the sortability.
    • The dates are sortable in their present format, aren't they?
      • Yes, indeed they are, but in their present format they're not really human readable. All I was suggesting was that you could convert them to really dates, i.e. 6 February, 2008, and {{dts2}} will sort them appropriately without having to rely on a YYYY-MM-DD format to get it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, but the column has not a single date, but successive dates. So, will adding dates in the format you suggested be correct? Let me illustrate this: His highest score was scored on two days. If I write it your format, I would have to write it as 11 December, 12 December, 2004, isn't it? Or, do you have a better way of using the date format? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspraveen (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, it's a range. Hmm. Difficult. But whichever you approach this, the ISO format isn't good. You can do a lot with the more basic {{sort}} template, it means more work for you, as you can write what you like and then pipe it to sort against the ISO date you're currently using. I think you may need to experiment because right now those dates are pretty grim to read. Either that, or you change it to the date the innings was completed? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]
            • Changed the dates to the date on which his innings concluded and also used the dts2 template for dates. Mspraveen (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know Inn means innings, as do you, but some may not so expand it in the table or explain it below. Done
  • Since the table is sortable, consider adding a # column so if it's re-ordered, it's still easy to see the temporal relationships between the various centuries. Done
  • "...first innings collapsed for ..." should be cited as it sounds a bit POV to me. Done
  • "record for the fourth wicket for India." needs citation. Done
  • " record total of 705 for 7 declared" needs citation. Done
  • Follow-on has an article which you could link to in the notes. Done
    • Already has a wiki-link. You might not have observed it.
  • More POV/journalistic examples which need citation or work on the tone... (P.S. I recognise all of these are commonly used in cricket and make a lot of sense to the aficionado but if these notes are to be part of a featured article they need to be accessible to all).
    • "the Windies survived in their final innings. " - sounds POV again, journalistic even. Citation or neutralise the tone. Done
    • "Indian second innings collapsed " Done
    • "A quickfire South African second innings " Done
    • "The Indian second innings collapsed " Done
    • "making a draw all but inevitable" Done
    • "A close finish ensued with the Indians managing to hold out and scoring the winning runs with two wickets to spare. " Done
    • "India collapsed for 195 " Done
  • "notable contribution " - why notable, because he made 162?
    • There are many such instances of "notable" within the article. This is to suggest the primary contributions by the players.

Hope that these comments help. Feel free to get in touch if you need anything further. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out all those which are clearly addressed. The rest are retained with my comments so as to allow any further discussion. I thank you once again for taking out time in reviewing the article. Please feel free in letting me know of any further ideas so as to improve its quality. Mspraveen (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments...
    • Make the default sort in chronological order, that's more logical. Done
    • The # column doesn't sort correctly.
    • Avoid leading zeros in the {{dts2}} like 02 December etc, it's not necessary. Done
  • Keep up the good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made some amends. Hope you agree they improve the Lead. I think there's a problem of editorialising in the footnotes. The footnotes are entirely unreferenced and for the standards of FLC smack of WP:OR, which is a big negative. I'm not sure how you'd fix this; you could just remove them and leave people to find out what happened in the match from the link to the scorecard. I would suggest, however, that you restrict yourself to pertinent facts - just note any large partnerships in a dry, statistical manner. And add a column to the table, showing the match result as W/D/L (so it's sortable) and add the size of win/losing margin in the footnote. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the lead is much better now. Thank you! The footnotes contain statistics - as is. I hope this would resolve the WP:OR issue. What say? Mspraveen (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one other idea. Sometimes players make a substantial innings that is a very high proportion of the team score. Might be nice to have a column showing the % of India's total that ST contributed, for each of his hundreds. --Dweller (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since a substantial score by a batsman is not that frequent, I felt adding a column for the same would not really be appropriate. It could, very well, be suitable for a list of scores with high % contributions to the team totals. Thoughts? Mspraveen (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - A well developed, informative list, that meets FL criteria. I have made several updates and tweaks; and some changes per talk page discussion. - KNM Talk 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the above suggestions, I've setup a results column and the references in the same column as this would be most appropriate. Thank you KNM, Dweller and others in lending me a helping hand in improving this further. I hope that I was able to address all the main issues. There still is not # column as the references will serve the numbering in case of other column-sorts. Mspraveen (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - still not keen on the in-line links for the test scorecards, and would prefer to see centrally aligned innings and score columns... but it's a lot, lot better than when I first reviewed so good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks nice but if you build a list of his ODI tons then the articles could be combined for "List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar" I think; two articles detailing one player's centuries seems wasteful. Anyway, looking at the article as it is,
  • Remove overlinks of the countries and stadiums in the table. Done
  • Why not "not out" instead of the potentially ambiguous "unbeaten" (below the table). Done
  • Consider the possibility of additional columns like method of dismissal, bowler dismissed by, or something like "c. Gilchrist b. McGrath".
  • Not sure how much of value add would this bring in. In the list, I think sufficient stats have already been provided. IMO, mode of dismissal is not so relevant and would add to clutter, in an already constrained space. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 17:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Test" column heading is potentially ambiguous; it took me a while to realise that you mean the #th test of that particular series. Done
indopug (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since 11/39 centuries of his remained unbeaten/not out, I felt adding a column for the mode of dismissal might not be suitable. However, now that you pointed it out, I will be doing this soon.
  • On the hindsight, I'd rather not want to do this because as I began doing this, the setup appeared clumsy to me. Thoughts? Mspraveen (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since both forms of the game, that is, Test cricket and ODI, are quite different in their approach, it seemed appropriate to me that there be two articles for his centuries in both these forms. If insisted based on a common achieved consensus, I am willing to put the ODI tons along in a separate table in this page, which will be renamed as per your suggestion.
Thanks for your comments. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to delink the countries. Fine about the dismissals. indopug (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The countries and their flags come directly from the respective templates. For example,  England. I am not sure of any ideas on how to unlink the countries. Would you be able to suggest me of any? Mspraveen (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok; I didn't know that. Is there any pattern to the additional information listed under "Notes" for each match? Do you think there is scope for additional information like a table for number of centuries against each country? Maybe also a mention in the lead about how he has most no of 90s too (correct me if I'm wrong about this). indopug (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)  Done added in the lead section Mspraveen (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the pattern is chronological and the section shows the key statistics from the match. Mspraveen (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts / suggestions / issues:
    • I would prefer without the external link under "Test #", but with the link reformatted as a reference using {{cite web}} in a new "refs" column. It looks odd to me to have an external link in that location, and it's not obvious that that's the link that verifies not just the number of the test match in that series but also the other information in the row.
    • I'm not that keen on the detailed notes, even though they are less detailed than previously. Many add little value to this list (e.g. names of others who scored centuries, margin of victory): even if there are interesting comments in there from a cricket fan's point of view, they distract from the main point of the list. Anyone clicking through the scorecard will see that information anyway.
    • I would prefer another table on this page with a list of ODI centuries to there being a separate page for an ODI list. The combined result isn't going to be too long and I think it makes sense to have the two together together.
    • Were any of his centuries scored during his periods as captain? If so, it would be good to highlight these - if not, worth a sentence somewhere?
    • Image:Sachin tendulkar.jpg / Image:Tendulkar closup.jpg are Commons images showing Tendulkar celebrating one of his centuries against Australia (Jan 2007) - might be worth adding.
  • So it's a weak oppose at present, with the points in descending order of importance. BencherliteTalk 01:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I'm presently working on the highlighted points and will revert with an update within 3-4 hours. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now the list has both ODI and Test cricket tables. The references format have been altered in both these tables as per the suggestions. Comments are welcome. The lead section will be re-written within 24 hours. Mspraveen (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name of the list has been updated and the previous FLC discussion has been shifted to this one. Thanks to User:Amarrg, things have been speeded up and the lead section has been setup nicely. Sensible additions and changes to the tables make it look more complete now.
  • Further thoughts from reviewers are welcome. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent work, much improved. I took the liberty of replacing four references for the no of centuries scored by Ponting, Lara, Gavaskar and Tendulkar with just one, added an "accessdate" to another reference, and added one of the photos I mentioned above. Switching to support: excellent work. (Oh, and I fixed the cut-and-paste move of this discussion free of charge!) BencherliteTalk 21:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wanted something else to do to make it even better, then you could add in the batting position to the test match list for consistency, as it's there in the ODI list. I don't think S/R would be needed for the test list, though. BencherliteTalk 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_international_cricket_centuries_by_Sachin_Tendulkar&oldid=1126718608"