Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/One-day International cricket hat-tricks/archive1

One-day International cricket hat-tricks[edit]

This is the One-day International cricket equivalent of Test cricket hat-tricks. Not originally my work, but I have expanded it considerably. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment cannot support because references are cited in an improper manner. Please use {{cite web}}. Renata 13:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware that {{cite web}} was a requirement. I have added "Retrived" dates, if that is what you are asking for. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cite web is not a requirement. It is a nice shortcut. I fixed them myself, do you see the difference? Renata 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. Well, it is different, but, for example, you have removed the links to Cricinfo and Howstat, and I am not convinced that Howstat is a "work". But I am not so exercised as to bother changing it back. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, links are unfortunate, but Howstad is a work (website) published by Howstad Ltd. (or something like this) I just did not add the publisher 'cause it's the same in essence. Renata 16:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support after fixing references. Renata 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A better description of what the implications and occurrences of a ODI hat trick in the intro would benefit the article. For example, it began in 1971 but is the ODI an annual tournament or a year round competition? Its been done 20 times, but how many ODI games have there been: hundreds or thousands (5 games a year or 162 games a year)? I got what the role of the bowler is in the intro but also mention what the "Dismissal" people do. In the table headers "No" should be "No.", "At" could be replaced with "Cricket Ground" or "Venue" or "Location". Disambiguate SCG. Please clarify reasoning behind the external links and notes in the "No" column (I'm ok with it but it is an unorthodox format). Why not split that column into a "No." for the occurrence number (unwikified number centered in the cell), and a "ODI #" for the specific game with the external link to those box scores. The References could be better formatted per Renta above. Peer Review 20:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insightful comments - I hope I have dealt with them.

The "dismissals" column sets out the three batsmen who were dismissed, and how their wickets were taken (I'm sorry - cricket has a rather dense jargon - see List of cricket terms!- but I have added in some extra explanatory text - I guess I should also revise the lead section of Test cricket hat-tricks for the non-cricket afdficionado?).
I have replaced "No" with № - is that better?
I think "At" is a more succinct word for "Ground", "Venue" or "Location".
I have disambiguated SCG to Sydney Cricket Ground.
The idea of ODI number is a good one - implemented. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 13:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment - I found the second sentence was not that clear first time I read it, especially what "in the following 25 years" was reffering to. Maybe a re-arrangement or splitting of the sentence is necessary. However not enough to opose. Suicidalhamster 18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment - better? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes much better, Thanks - Suicidalhamster 09:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong object - the notes information contains information that needs a reference itself (e.g. Zimbabwe's score now being 3rd lowest), which is also subject to change when the main list won't be. I can see that this article is likely to be updated if another hat trick is taken, but I'm not convinced that if another side get bowled out for 35, then there will be a rapid reaction to change that to "4th lowest". I suggest at least using an "as of" WP:AO. There is a lot of information, both in the introduction and the notes, that is not referenced at all - not a case merely of no inline references, but the references provided simply give lists of bowler, match, location, dismissals and how out, with howstat verifying none taken on debut and cricinfo verifying that Javed was the youngest. All other information is unreferenced. Some could be worked out from other references (e.g. Brandes being the oldest, though this would entail linking to a bunch of biographies as references and asserting that once ages at time of hat trick are calculated, Brandes is oldest) but there is still a lot of information missing crucial references. As for hunting down references, I am virtually certain that the original author has made use of information from a cricinfo article, quite possibly in the "Ask Steven" section (which often contains the kind of "trivia" given here) but don't know quite which one. Until the information given here can be sourced and verified, then it falls short of featured list standards. TheGrappler 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what can I say - I keep the lists I am interested in up to date and accurate, as far as I can. List of Test cricket records changes regularly, but keeps pretty well updated, for example. I see what you mean about "now" - I have changed to an "as of", with a link to an external list of the lowest ODI scores (also in List of One-day International cricket records). The information in "Notable ODI hat-tricks" and "Notes" is taken from all sorts of sources - some are self-evident from the list itself (e.g. number of hat-tricks) or by comparison with other Wikipedia articles (Saqlain is the only spinner). It is (relatively) easy to work out were the "oldest" and "youngest" players from the date of the hat-trick and each player's birthdate. You could say that this is original research; on the other hand, arithmetic is just arithemtic. The "notes" are pretty much all taken from the facts in the scorecards, which are linked in the "ODI №" column. I could add 20 scorecards and a bunch of other things as references, if you like, but I don't think it is necessary. If you feel so strongly about it, I suggest you object to List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries above, and FARC Test cricket hat-tricks and List of Test cricket triple centuries. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's true that arithmetic is just arithmetic: though part of me thinks that at least somewhere the figures where the arithmetic comes from perhaps ought to be referenced, it's not obvious that it's necessary. It's the other stuff that I am basing my objection upon: as you put it I could add 20 scorecards and a bunch of other things as references, if you like, but I don't think it is necessary. Why is it not necessary to cite sources for non-trivial facts? Surely these should always be referenced, especially in featured content? TheGrappler 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I have added some inline links for the notes on best ODI bowling figures and worst innings score in the notes. As I said, the main other reference is the scorecards from the relevant matches - there is a link to each one already, and I would rather not list them all again. I would be very happy if you can suggest a neat way to add them as references without adding a list of 20 scorecards. The article is going to start to look like a patchwork quilt of footnotes if you are going to require me to provide a reference for the flag of each Test-playing nation, the definition of a hat-trick, the date of the first ODI... -- ALoan (Talk) 16:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate there is a particular problem with lists in that notes to lists may need references themselves, hence providing producing something of a patchwork as you suggest. Of course there is no need to give a reference for a national flag! But I hope you can see that it is not trivial (in the way that "oldest"/"youngest" statistics may be) to simply state that "Zimbabwe were dismissed for 38, then the lowest score recorded in an ODI" and that this is now the third lowest total? That is a verifiable fact not present on any of the other references and that requires a citation. There now is one, which is great. What is really good is that the reference page will probably get updated if that fact changes, so any keen reference-checker on Wikipedia will be able to see that Wikipedia needs updating. Perhaps the only outstanding uncited claims are those referring to test hat-tricks in the "notable" section: I can imagine those claims getting out of date too; if there were a reference that backed the claim up and even may be updated before Wikipedia, then that would be good. I can understand not wanting to link to the scorecards again, I don't have a problem with not referencing "Vaas also took the wicket of Dion Ebrahim with the first ball of the innings" for instance. I just hope you can understand why a claim like "In all, Vaas took 8-19, the first and only time a bowler has taken 8 wickets in an ODI" is different in that it needs a citation? In a top class article (and a featured list should be one), ideally the "References" section should contain citations for all of the information in the article, anything else may be verifiable but is currently unverified. I have added a link to deal with the test hat-tricks and am now confident every major fact is independently supported by a site accessible from the page, so am prepared to support. Other people may want to complain about the formatting of the inline links, though. TheGrappler 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving nomination for an extra day to gather more votes. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 13:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]