Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Zimbabwe national cricket captains/archive1
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by PresN (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 12 June 2015 (closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by PresN 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Zimbabwe national cricket captains[edit]
List of Zimbabwe national cricket captains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Harshhussey, Mattinbgn, The Rambling Man, WikiProject Cricket
This is Wikipedia's oldest remaining Featured list, but unfortunately it has a number of issues, though admittedly ones that can probably be resolved without excessive effort. To assess it against the criteria, I would say it primarily suffers against criteria 3a and 4, but it has problems with a number of them.
- The lead is mostly unreferenced.
- The article is out of date; Zimbabwe are playing Test cricket again, and the statistics in the tables are out of date.
- The tables lack row and column scopes, and I wonder if the Test table would benefit from being sortable.
- Which bring me onto the format of the Test table; although it is the normal format for these lists, I don't know how useful it is as a format, it seems clunky to me.
Hopefully we can work on this to bring it back to the standard needed, but I fear that without interest, it would fall out of date again soon even so. Harrias talk 09:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the Test matches table looks bad IMO, there must be a neater format.
- Most of the article is out of date, lead is out of date, and needs actual sourcing.
- It could all be made sortable.
- Unless someone want to continually maintain and update it, it seems like it's eventually going to lose FA status- in it's current state I think it should be delisted. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator; no progress made since the list was nominated for demotion. Seattle (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as Delist --PresN 19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.