Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of India cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut/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 Crisco 1492 07:04, 26 June 2015 [1].

List of India cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut[edit]

List of India cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Lugnuts, —Vensatry (ping) 20:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Credits to User:Lugnuts for creating the basic article. I expanded the lead and tidied the table up a bit. Happy to have him as a co-nom. With just eight players, the list might look short, but this is a never-ending list. We've had a discussion regarding this in the past. Look forward to your comments —Vensatry (ping) 20:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't this list be more complete if it was called List of cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut and just include all 100 or so members, rather than divide it into countries with only 8 people? Mattximus (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through the discussion in the link which I have quoted above. Besides, we already have two such FLs – Pakistan and South Africa —Vensatry (ping) 18:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I won't oppose due to the discussion you linked, but I really think that an article containing all countries would be much more useful, as you could compare countries at a glance, with sortable columns. It would be a fantastic wikipedia page instead of several rather obscure tiny lists. I would vote to merge these independent lists into a single large one. Mattximus (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At which point they'd become to large to manage, and split back out to their component parts. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
144 or so is not too many. I really think much is lost by splitting them up like this. You can't compare countries, sort by date, etc... Mattximus (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias, The Rambling Man, Crisco 1492, Giants2008, and ChrisTheDude: Can you weigh in your opinion here? —Vensatry (ping) 14:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Chris and Pope's idea. Down the line, perhaps that article could come to FLC as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with all those above, that's a great idea. Mattximus (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, oh yes, just seen that. Thanks! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments from Harrias talk
  • No problem with the length of the list, eight entries is fine.
  • Is the name sorting right, for them all to sort by first name? I'm sure you'd know better than me, but it seems odd to me that in the prose you refer to Mohammad Nissar as "Nissar", but he sorts by the "M".
    • I have no problem over sorting the table by last name. But we have this problem with South Indian names – In Ravichandran Ashwin, Ashwin is the actual name of the person while Ravichandran is patronymic. In case of Mohammad Nissar, Nissar is a surname. Generally speaking, we are advised to use last names, however, WP:PATRONYMIC suggests the person should be referred to by their given name (it doesn't have an Indian perspective though). —Vensatry (ping) 12:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add in publisher and location details where relevant (particularly I'd say, #1, #2 and #3.
  • Refs 5 to 14 use "ESPNcricinfo" but 15 to 22 are "Cricinfo". Make these consistently "ESPNcricinfo" as the website parameter and add "ESPN" as a publisher.
  • Ref 10 needs author details and date.
  • Ref 13 needs endashes rather than hyphens.

Overall, a nice list. Also worth noting that as Lugnuts is listed as a co-nominator, that support should probably be struck. Harrias talk 09:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks for your comments —Vensatry (ping) 12:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work. I'll leave it up to you on the sorting, you're the better judge of which would be more appropriate. Well done. Harrias talk 13:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Minor quibble with the title, some of those listed took more than five wickets...
    • True that. I remember someone had pointed out this at a thread in WT:CRIC. Will move the page once we're done with this nom. —Vensatry (ping) 17:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of February 2015" it's now June, is this still correct?
  • "The eight such occasions " not keen on this phrasing, still thinking how best to rephrase though...!
    • What's wrong with this? I too cannot think of a better alternative. —Vensatry (ping) 17:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first Indian to achieve this feat" if it was me, I'd say "The first Indian to take a five-wicket haul..."
  • "In the event, Nissar became the first Indian to take a five-wicket haul in Test cricket." I think this is sort of obvious considering it was India's inaugural Test match, but I'd merge it with the previous sentence, so ", becoming the first Indian ..."
  • " a Leg spinner" no need to capitalise Leg.
  • "As of May 2015, he is the only Indian cricketer to take ten or more wickets in a Test match on debut." it's June, and can we reference this?
  • No need to relink "fast bowler" in the last para of the lead.
  • Be consistent with the application of full stops in the key.
    • Only complete sentences are ended with a full stop. —Vensatry (ping) 17:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking the source, Ashwin took 6 for 47 I believe.
  • I don't know but it may be worth clarifying that although this is about debut fifers, the debut includes both innings of the Test match, e.g. Ashwin didn't take a fifer on his debut bowl, it was his second innings...

That's all I have from a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The five-wicket hauls were taken in seven different venues" => "The five-wicket hauls were taken at seven different venues"
  • Also need a comma after venues
  • The various references to "on debut" should be "on his debut", "on debut" is not natural English. For that matter, I'm a bit unsure about the current wording of the article's title
    • I agree the title needs to be changed. I didn't know that "on debut" was not natural English. But see these publications: [2] [3] [4]. —Vensatry (ping) 16:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I only looked at the first source, but in that one the only usage I could find of "on debut" was in the headline, and headlines often omit words for the sake of brevity. I'd be interested to hear what users like @The Rambling Man: and @Harrias: think of the use of "on debut", which to me just doesn't seem like natural English...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nissar, along with Ali and Shami are the only fast bowlers" => "Nissar, Ali and Shami are the only fast bowlers"
  • Not sure what the purpose of note A is, as it basically just re-states the sentence in the lead which it is placed against
  • "Ashwin's five wicket haul came in his second innings" - I don't understand this note, does it mean the fifer came in the West Indies' second innings (of batting)? If so, just say "Ashwin's five wicket haul came in the West Indies' second innings"; we don't refer to a bowler's second innings...........

Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "... during India's inaugural Test series—a one-off Test series" The prose is a bit, what shall I say, "strained" here. Can't we just say "in India's inaugural Test" or "India's first Test" ? Tintin 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The way this line is phrased now - Narendra Hirwani's 8 wickets for 61 runs against the West Indies, in January 1988, are the best bowling figures by an Indian on Test debut and third overall - could very well be interpreted that Hirwani's figures is the third best for India.
  • Why is Hirwani's 8/75 excluded from the table ? That he took 5WI doesn't mean that he did not take 5WI in the second, does it ? :-) Tintin 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin 13:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintin1107: Thanks very much for the comments. As always, they are very helpful :) —Vensatry (ping) 15:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "by the critics..." is there a better word you could use other than critics? Just sounds wrong to me. If not then remove "the" as it is not needed
  • "The eight such occasions..."
  • "with five of them being inside India; two were taken at the..." -> five in India, two of which were taken at the
  • The table does not meet WP:ACCESS, you need to add row and col scopes

NapHit (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support good work. NapHit (talk) 19:11, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_India_cricketers_who_have_taken_five_wickets_on_Test_debut/archive1&oldid=1138482611"