Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham/archive1

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 by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [1].

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham[edit]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FLC criteria. It is based upon existing FL List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Glenn McGrath. Harrias talk 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Pity image is of Beefy batting. Anyway, make it bigger, so I can see the moustache.
  • Aye, I'm just glad to have an image to use at all though! Made it bigger for you too.
  • Perhaps make OBE and ICC clear before you abbreviate them?
  • Done.
  • Windies is overlinked in the lead.
  • Done.
  • Consider splitting the key into two columns.
  • Done.
  • Note 1 could use a reference.
  • Done.
  • Date ranges in references should still comply with WP:DASH.
  • Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments! Harrias talk 19:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As of July 2010..." soon to be October...
  • I don't like this phrasing at all, any objection to simply remove the "as of..." completely? As this is a FL, it should be kept up to date anyway, and its not something that's going to get surpassed rapidly and frequently.
  • Maybe we need a solution which is list-wide, like the "Statistics correct as of ..." statements we sometimes see. You're right that FLs should be up to date but often, they're not. For the moment I'd say change it to October, add a note to the top of the list that says "Stats correct.." and that should do it. Luckily for Beefy there's no-one too close to his individual records (in this list at least) so it'll be fine, but maybe we need a "universal" solution... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would be the purpose of the "Stats correct.." at the top of the list? For the list stats? Because they're not (in this case) going to change, so I don't see the need in that case? Harrias talk 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you're right, the stats won't change, but Beefy's position as "England's fourth highest wicket-taker" and "sixth overall in all-time Test five-wicket haul takers" should be timeframed... (in my opinion...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about removing the "As of.." and placing a note (in the style of "note 1") saying "Statistics correct as of 30 September 2010 (or 2010-09-30)? Harrias talk 22:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, how's that? I put 'records' instead of 'statistics' as it seemed a more accurate reflection.Harrias talk 22:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
He's a Knight Bachelor, right? Link knighted to Knight Bachelor in "and was knighted for his services to cricket and charity work in 2007.", then.
  • Done.
"He made his international debut for England in August 1976 in a One Day International (ODI) against the West Indies." This is nitpicky, but since ODI's are on, well, one day, I'd give the exact date here.
  • Done.
Here's what's going to be my most contentious comment... explain to the cricket dunce why five wickets is worthy of a list, instead of.. say, four?
  • In many ways I suppose it's an arbitrary point at which it is considered the bowler has done well. No different to a century being so for a batsman, after all, what really makes 100 so much better than 99? But, these are the points at which it is considered an achievement (at least in the modern game: in pre-Second World War cricket I've never seen much import placed upon it, with ten wickets in a match being used as an indicator instead). However, with covered pitches and other factors which have swung the game more in favour of the batsmen, 10 wickets is a much more rare occurrence, and five wickets in an innings has taken on much greater importance. This probably doesn't answer the question well enough, and you probably just wanted a small note in the article, but you've got my ramblings instead!
  • Yeah, I do think it needs some explanation in the list, kind of like the Opening Day FLC running now had to explain in the list why starting on Opening Day meant anything. Courcelles 07:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if this is based on the Glenn McGrath list, there's a rather neat introduction to why a five-for is notable. A very good job, if I do say so myself...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stole phrase directly from Glenn McGrath list, thanks! Harrias talk 11:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Date – Date the match was held. Starting date of the match for Test matches." But everything listed here is a test match, so this could handle a reword.
  • Done.

Courcelles 01:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to comments. Harrias talk 06:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Quick comments
Please could you make the numeric columns centre-aligned rather than crammed up against the LH edge of the cell.
  • I will do, assuming no other editor has any objection to it.
  • Done.Harrias talk 11:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why the WI Cricket Board flag isn't used?
  • The WI Cricket Board flag is not free use.
Stupid of me, I saw it in List of Test cricket triple centuries, but didn't realise how long ago that list went through FLC
Why does the list include Economy but not Maidens?
  • I think economy is a better indicator of the bowling that the number of maidens. Personally.
What doesn't help is that I'd intended to write "but not Maidens or Bowling Average", sorry about that... If we were talking ODIs, I'd agree that economy was more relevant, but we're not. A bowler's analysis is still given as O-M-R-W, and lists of bowlers are still (for Test cricket, anyway) ordered on bowling average. In the 1970s/80s, when Botham was playing, economy wasn't really a concept applied to Test cricket. Wisden didn't record it, and the only mention in the Daily Telegraph's book of the 1981 Ashes series (ISBN 0901684716), which reproduces each day's match report from the newspaper and also Bill Frindall's scorecards, is at the end, in a list of each team's bowlers, which after O-M-R-W-Ave-BB-5w-10w, has two economy-related columns, balls/wicket and runs/100 balls (and the headings are written out in full, not abbreviated like the standard stuff, to be sure the reader understands). I'd suggest that including maidens and calculating the bowling average for each 5-wicket haul might provide a better overall indicator of the bowling, and a less anachronistic one, than runs/over economy alone. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well argued. I agree with your comments, but before making any change, I'd like to invite The Rambling Man, as the primary contributor to the Wasim Akram and Glenn McGrath lists to comment. Not so that I can say "well they don't have it, why should I?" But rather because I feel if this change is made in this list, it should also be made in those (and Muralitharan, though the primary contributor from that has retired). Harrias talk 19:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only popping by and won't be back for a few days, but my initial instinct is that we all use Cricinfo for our main stats, and don't synthesise others for the purpose of these best-of lists. I'm tired and probably have missed the point, but I'll get back to you on Monday/Tuesday if that's the case. In general, while stats may have been calculated/published subtly different in the past, I think we probably should go with the current and compare apples with apples. Bare and legitimate economy stats should be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having read TRM's comments, and thought about this more myself, I don't really favour the inclusion of maidens or bowling average in the table. Bowling average is not generally a statistic applied to a single match, being used across a number of matches instead. Maidens, while possibly a relevant statistic, don't necessarily tell the whole story. Given that the other FLs of this type don't include it, and that no particular consensus has been reached by the three of us, I'm going to leave it out for the time being. However, I will bring the conversation up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket and see what the consensus is there. Harrias talk 11:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration, you're right about bowling average. I'd also agree that maidens don't tell the whole story, but neither does economy. Together, they possibly give a broader picture of the bowling performance than does either alone. And as cricinfo still records maidens, even for ODIs, no-one could consider their inclusion as in any way synthetic or not "legitimate", and I vaguely wonder why whoever first wrote one of these lists decided to leave them out. Though I accept entirely that there's no consensus here to put them in, and that this isn't the place to continue the debate :-) Please feel free to strike this thread, or put it under the yellow cap with my other comments, once you've read this. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Harrias talk 17:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Three straight sentences in the first paragraph start with "He". A little more variety would be nice. The first use would be a good place to start, since what comes beforehand isn't directly related to Botham. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, have altered the first and third of that sequence. Harrias talk 22:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – Note that I fixed a grammatical issue that likely related to the fix which was made. Other than that now-addressed item, everything looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| . MOS has changed a lot since then. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Thank you for the constructive criticism. Oh wait, no, it wasn't that at all.
  2. I've looked at WP:MOS and I see nothing that says I have to do this. Although I agree that it is covered in Help:Table.
  3. As far as I can tell, I've now fixed it, do you still oppose? If not, wouldn't a comment, rather than an opposition have made more sense initially?
  4. Thanks for the civility.Harrias talk 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes I'm sorry it should have been comment and I should have linked you to the MOS page at WP:ACCESS#Data tables. I didnt mean to cause confusion on what is a well written article -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:48, 19 October 2010 (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_five-wicket_hauls_by_Ian_Botham/archive1&oldid=1090424554"