Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of International Cricket Council members/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 not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [1].

List of International Cricket Council members[edit]

I believe this article should be a Featured List because it meets all the criteria for becoming a Featured List.Blackhole77 talk | contrib 00:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is weak and too short, see WP:LEAD for advice on length and WP:LEAD#Bold title for further advice on emboldening the relevant part of the intro.
    •  Done
  • " it has grew to " isn't grammatically correct.
    •  Done
  • "33 Associate Members in which cricket is firmly established and organised but which do not qualify for Full Membership," reads very strangely - the cricket is established in the country in question, not the member.
    •  Done
  • Place (ICC) after the first use of the fully expanded title.
    •  Done
  • "Laws of Cricket" should be "Laws of cricket".
    •  Done
  • "Full Members are the governing bodies for cricket recognised by ICC of a country, or countries associated for cricket purposes, or a geographical area, from which representative teams are qualified to play official Test matches." reads strangely to me. At least move the "recognised by ICC" (shouldn't that be the ICC?) to the end. The sentence needs rewording.
    •  Done
  • Why "Date of joining" in the top table and then Member since in the others?
    •  Done
  • Why force the date column to be so thin? It forces rows to be too deep, e.g. the South Africa row is 7 rows deep!
    •  Done Stretched it as far as I could.
  • The accessdate on your {{cite web}} templates all have extra [[...]].
    • Working on it
      •  Done.
  • Date column doesn't sort correctly - use {{dts}}
    •  Done.
  • When using named references for the second and subsequent times, simply use <ref name=blah/> instead of repeating all the data in the template.
    •  Done
  • Numbers below ten typically are written out in words.
    •  Done
  • You need to cite the claims about the associate members qualification to various tournaments.
    •  Done
  • And the fact that affiliates can play in the ICC World Cricket League.
    •  Done
  • Why is Ghana's ref on a new line?
    • I've tried. Couldn't figure it out.
      •  Done
So, there's a lot of work to do right now, so oppose. It's not insurmountable, give me a shout when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recognized" vs "recognises" be consistent with Brit Eng.
    •  Done
  • Still not overwhelmed by the lead. It needs to be copyedited by someone who doesn't know the structure of international cricket. I get everything you're saying but it doesn't read particularly elegantly and I think grammatically it falls short. I'd ask for an independent view. Perhaps drop User:Dweller a line? He's a cricket kind of guy but enjoys a good copyedit too...
    •  Done
  • Still need to expand the "member since" column.
    •  Done
  • Make the tables appear similarly, i.e. make the columns the same for each table.
    • {{done}
  • Remove the space before [3].
    •  Done
  • "get ODI status until " - would prefer something like "are awarded ODI status"
    •  Done
  • "Turks and Caicos Islands" takes up two lines on my monitor. You should work more on the col widths to optimise them.
    •  Done
  • Your {{Cite web}} references need to have publisher information and you need to make sure the title's are correct, e.g. for Cayman Islands link, I would expect the title to be something like "Teams - Cayman Islands" or "Cricinfo - Other countries - Teams - Cayman Islands"
    •  Done

Still a way to go for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping me in it, TRM! I'll take a look... hope that's OK with you Blackhole? --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I started copyediting, but really, the Lead is too flimsy. It's almost entirely unreferenced, and lacking basic information (I guessed, from memory, the ICC's original name, but I could well be wrong. I also guessed the addition I made about ODIs). Drop me a line when there's a thorough and referenced Lead and I'll help tweak the copy. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed up the Lead by ading some background information of the ICC. Hopefully, that fixes the problem.Blackhole77 talk | contrib 23:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reviewed the first three sentences. Hopefully that diff shows you the level of citation required for a featured quality list article. Have a look at some of the recently promoted FLs. This is some way off and needs work. It's not that the list cannot reach FL, it's just that there's too much to do. In short, this nomination was premature. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added inline citations to the Lead. I believe the Lead is up to the level of citation needed for a FL.
          • A huge improvement. Minor comment; please check that references follow punctuation without spaces? I spotted one; there may be others. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Done
  • Comment: In the lead you first say "The Imperial Cricket Conference was renamed the International Cricket Council in 1965", then you go onto say "In 1989, the ICC was again renamed, this time the International Cricket Council", am i missing something or is this an double up of names? Salavat (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done

Comments

  • See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence regarding the verbatim copy of the article's title. Also, the way it is now is a parastub, and the first two paragraphs should be merged into one.
  • "Shortly after World War II, Pakistan joined in 1953." doesn't read too well
  • "South Africa was reelected as a Full Member to the ICC in 1991[2]", "there are 10 Full Members[4];" and "there are 58 Affiliate Members[4]," - per WP:CS, don't place references mid-sentence or before punctuation
  • Reference [3] is given in the paragraph for Full members, so I don't see a problem if it was removed from the columns in the table, especially as it's the only one used.
  • In Associate members and Affiliate members, create a new column titled "Reference", and move over the references from "Member since"
  • Per WP:HEAD, only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalised in header titles. So unless "Associate Members" and "Full Members" are the terms used by ICC, the section titles should be "Associate members" and "Full members". Same for "Affiliate Members", and for the table titles ("Governing Body" should be "Governing body")

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

(might overrun with Matthew)

  • "The Imperial Cricket Conference was based at Lord's." It seems this could be merged with another sentence, probably the one immediately before it.
  • "They were soon joined by India, New Zealand, and West Indies in 1926." Using "they" is unclear pronoun reference.
  • "Shortly after World War II, Pakistan joined in 1953." Should be joined with another sentence, as it is rather short.
  • "In 1961, South Africa resigned due to South Africa leaving the Commonwealth." Link to Commonwealth?
  • "The Imperial Cricket Conference was renamed the International Cricket Conference in 1965.[3] New rules were permitted to allow countries from outside the Commonwealth to be elected in to the governing body for the first time." Could be combined, I think.
  • "The ICC currently has 101 members." Could be put in the first paragraph, I think.
  • "Associate Members are regarded as having cricket firmly established and organised." I think this could be moved to after the first instance of "Associate Members. So: "Below the Full Members are the 33 Associate Members, which are countries regarded as having cricket firmly established and organised."

Noble Story (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—1, 2, refs.
  • Is the lead trying to "engage" me, as required by Cr. 2? The ponderous lists of which countries joined when comes before I learn what the purpose of the organisation is. I don't mind the founding members at the start, I suppose. And when you says "soon" joined, um ... 1909 vs 1926—is that soon? And why saying soon at all if the years are given? Same with the redundant time-statement about Pakistan.
  • the West Indies.
  • Two alsos.
  • Spell out "ODI" first off; not everyone's an expert.
  • ize or ise: which is it to be?
  • "Full Members are the governing bodies for cricket of a country or countries associated for cricket purposes."—No idea what it means.
  • Refs: I looked at just one—45. What makes "Crickinfo" authoritative? You need to name the producer of the site (I see "ESPN.com - espnsoccernet.com - www.scrum.com" at the bottom – can you look into it?) Refs generally need an audit for reliability and authorship/site owners. TONY (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2008 (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_Council_members/archive1&oldid=1126718615"