Currently, I've another nomination open at FLC which has three supports, so I think there wouldn't be a problem with this one. This list was created by User:Lugnuts, so gets a co-nomination here (This is his first FLC, if I'm not wrong). I mainly worked on the lead portion of the list. I hereby invite all the reviewers for comments/suggestions. Regards, ZiaKhan 16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
a former right-armfast bowler, represented the England cricket team in 90 Tests between 1971 and 1984. - Do you really need "former" here? I'm assuming that, if Willis were to try and bowl now, he would still use a similar style. That he is not playing anymore is clear from the end of your sentence.
Corrected. 4th Test of the series was played in January 1971. ZiaKhan
eight wickets for 43 runs - per WP:NUMERAL avoid mixing and matching different number formats
These are not comparative figures since wickets and runs are different things, so I think I'm correct?? ZiaKhan 18:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Cats and dogs are different things too, but that's used as an example. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point, but this is not the case here. You are comparing the quantity of cats and dogs there, but in cricket "four wickets for 20 runs" is a totally different from "took 3 wickets and scored 129 runs". Hope you got my point. ZiaKhan 23:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps another individual from a cricket background would care to comment? I'm not having you change "for" to "and". I'm just asking you to ensure that we don't end up with mix-and-match numbers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment regarding 4 for eleven (&c) I'm reasonably ambivalent to this, but cricket has its own way of doing things, and yes, "4 cats and 3 dogs" vs "4 days and seven hedgehogs" etc. For me, in cricket matches I've watched, been involved in, even scored for, I would always see runs and wickets in numerical format. It may not be the way to interpret WP:MOS but I would always use 4 for 7, 3 for 121, etc (or if you're Australian, 103 for 2, 44 for 3 etc.....) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Wickets and runs now switched to numerical format. ZiaKhan 19:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Support on prose. Solid-looking list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.