Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut/archive1

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've done a major copy-edit to the list and I want to take this to a featured list status. Constructive comments and suggestions from reviewers at peer review will polish the list.

Thanks, —Zia Khan 01:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If you were to take this to FL, List of Pakistan Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut (currently an FLC), clearly overlaps with that. —Vensatry _(ping) 12:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – From a brief scan, I see that there is no large traditional list here. I understand that this mainly is a summary of other lists, but comprehensiveness is a challenge when we're not even mentioning most of the relevant players. One avenue that you could pursue is the creation of a summary table, as in Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster. That would at least provide a tabluar element, while providing a convenient place to put links to the various subarticles. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Appreciated! —Zia Khan 03:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You might want to explain/link/expand "permanent Test status" as to the non-initiated, this is jargon.
"comprises forty-five of them being taken" just "comprises forty-five taken" etc.
When I finally get the list, I'm disappointed, the list doesn't really exist. I'd like to see all 141 here. Otherwise this is a directory of links to other articles. And some don't even exist.
"Six, thirteen and thirty-six bowlers from four, five and nine different nations respectively, have taken eight, seven and six wickets in a Test innings on debut." bizarre phrasing. Virtually impossible to follow.

I think I'll stop here, I don't think I like the structure and my penultimate point means that if unresolved, I wouldn't be able to support this at FLC. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]