Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indian Premier League centuries/archive1

• Any reason for not including a separate column for "Serial no". Comment It was removed as per the suggestion by TRM. The date column is already present, so this is unnecessary.
  • This being a progressive list can grow many folds in the future. It would be helpful to know the total no. of centuries made in IPL just by looking at the table if you include that. Just an opinion. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you could overcome that by having a "total" row in the overview tables. The actual number can then be found both in the lead and in the two summary tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not done You haven't added the "total" row at the end of the tables. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have removed total column from the two lists at the bottom because they were misleading and as per asked by other two reviewers.--Vyom25 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why didn't you include a column for "Balls faced". That's a vital figure in these kind of lists especially when it comes to limited overs cricket. Not done Strike rate is already related to that. In T20s SR is usually preferred over balls faced.
  • That being the case you may also have to add a separate column for the "DLF maximums". —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number is in the lead. The table is already very big, thats why its better to leave that for future when we have about 50+ 100s.
• "The fastest IPL century in terms of number of balls faced and strike rate". The text here is a bit redundant. Fixed
• The caption of the image is a repetition of what you have already explained in the lead. Comment I don't think that this is a problem. The caption is to tell that how does this image related to this article/list.
  • No you can't repeat facts. If you can't think of a better caption just remove it and use the player name alone. That would suffice. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The venue column must follow the "Ground name, City" format. Done
• I would like to have a secondary sort for the score column based on the strike rate. For eg., Gilly's 109 should come ahead of Warner while sorting by descending order. Not done I can't see other similar FL doing that. It can be done, but I am afraid that it will make a mess and all the hardwork will go into nothing.
  • You need to do that. The column doesn't sort correctly. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ESPNcricinfo is not a publisher. It must be included under the work parameter. Done
• Inconsistency in date format in Refs #6, #7 and #8. Fixed
  • Not done You haven't corrected the format for access dates. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]
• "Telegraphindia" is a print media. The publisher parameter is not required if it's a self publishing media. Instead, the work parameter must be filled in. Done
  • Not done You don't have to use italics in work column. It will automatically italicize the value. Also you haven't fixed Ref #8. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref #7 has no author's name. Fixed
  —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the "year" column best to define the scope in the second table. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have further fixed all your comments except the caption one. There is no policy or guideline which says that you can't repeat facts in a caption. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note – You haven't fixed a few concerns. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done As of the serial no. advice, I have left a note on TRM's talk, lets see what he says. As of the year column, Cricinfo refers to them as Indian Premier League, year, so I think the current version is the best. I have implemented all your other advises. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go by policies and guidelines, you may ignore a majority of the suggestions given by reviewers. When I worked on a similar list, a reviewer asked me to either change the caption or remove the sentence as it was a repeated fact. You may wish to keep the caption as such, but don't expect me to resolve your comments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I hope the new caption is fine. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Though the caption is a bit lengthy, I'm okay with it. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Economic Times" should be italicized. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done--Vyom25 (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Link "franchises". —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Linked--Vyom25 (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good work with the tables. However, the prose part is not so engaging. I think it needs a small amount of copy-edit. Otherwise everything is fine for me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More on prose

• Gayle -> Chris Gayle in the lead  Done
• Murali Vijay is linked twice in the lead  Done
• at the strike rate of -> at a strike rate of  Done
• The lead image has the picture of Chris Gayle and the caption is a bit lengthy talking unnecessary. It can be included in the lead  Done
• Why is "International Cricket Council" italicised in ref #4; same with NDTV in ref #8  Done
• Is the cat "Indian cricket in the 21st century" relevant here?  Done
• Arrange the categories in alphabetical order

• Category:Indian Premier League is the most relevant cat here, so I think it should be the first one.

The third para just reads like a list of facts. As I said earlier, the prose needs to be more engaging.

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have again tried to make it better, and hopefully I did. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Was been made" is grammatically incorrect. Done jfd34 (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except for this everything looks fine now. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Indian Premier League has been held annually ........." -> "The IPL has been held annually ........"

--Done

• Link "not out" in the lede.

--Done

• "Five centuries have been made by players from the Delhi Daredevils, which is more than any other team." -> "Five centuries have been made by players from the Delhi Daredevils, which are more than any other team."

--please have a look at NapHit's comment.

• "who have scored a IPL century" -> "who have scored an IPL century"

--Done

• The tables look odd to me, could you remove "align=center" from the tables.

--Done I have done a slightly different thing so do have a look.

• Not sure why you need a "Total" row in the last two tables.

--It is necessary to give the summation of the total centuries and centurions.

Zia Khan 17:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments as Vibhi is not available I am looking into it.--Vyom25 (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Players from the Royal Challengers Bangalore has scored four centuries, which is the second most after the five centuries scored by Delhi Daredevils players.--> Players from the Royal Challengers Bangalore have scored four centuries, which are the second most after the five centuries scored by Delhi Daredevils players.

--Done

More comments –

• ESPN Cricinfo should be ESPNcricinfo, use publsher parameter.

--Done

• Since work parameter is used for print media, "The Telegraph" should be The Telegraph.

--Done replaced the source with Cricinfo.

• Link NDTV.

--Done

• Be consistent, link all the "ESPNcricinfo" or link "The Telegraph" only at 1st use.

--Added all the cricinfo ref.

Zia Khan 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed total row from the other two lists as you asked.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved on 7 August

• I'm not keen on the symbols and text wrapping onto the next line in the tables, could you set these not to wrap, or make the tables wider (or both)? (placing the images at the end of the tables in a gallery).

--It has been tried and I am not sure why Vibhi changed it. I have to ask him.

Have a look for text wrapping.--Vyom25 (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still wrapping text in the main list.

Zia Khan 09:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look now it was the only way I could unwrap the text. Because table is very large.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the images to unwrap the text and put a No. column in the list. Zia Khan 12:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor moved images into the gallery section at the bottom of the page now what do you say?--Vyom25 (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Now remove "inn." column and put a "No." column in the list, and I'm all good. Zia Khan 06:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review! :) As of the no. thing, there has been a discussion in this FLC earlier, and I don't want to make any changes without getting a consensus for this. As of the inn. thing, it helps in knowing a batsman' ability of making runs at the time of chase an the first innings (I know that this is more applicable to Test cricket, but still its an important stat is my opinion). :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the most important thing is how many centuries are there in the list. Zia Khan 10:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, but both the other two lists, and the lead, tells that. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think so. Only the lede tells that which is not sufficient. Zia Khan 11:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops! The list changed when I was away. Sorry! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You are working the wrong way "Total" rows were removed on consensus. See comments from Vensatry, Harrias and myself. Zia Khan 13:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again sorry! Well, I am confused what to do. I can't get a clear consensus on the no. thing. Lets see if someone can help us out. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me as this resolves. Zia Khan 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Done

• The first two images by the table are basically saying the same sort of thing, but one starts "has scored" while the other just starts "scored".

--Done

• The language is a little arduous and repetitive in places: "fastest IPL century in terms of strike rate was scored by", "was the slowest in terms of strike rate".

--Done

• Stating that a few players have reached "100 more than once" and then that "Gayle has achieved this feat three times." is a little confusing, as it sort of implies that Gayle has reached 100 more than once three times. Which makes no sense.

--Done

• The names wrap onto two lines on my monitor: could you force that column not to wrap without being too visually detrimental on the remainder of the list?

--Have a look.

• The numbers in the second list don't add up: 6+5+4+2+6 does not equal 18 for the number of centurions, and that table would suggest that only in one season has a player scored more than one century (2011). This is presumably because some players have scored in more than one season, but it is highly misleading in that case.

--Done removed total row.

• The number of centurions does not add up in the following table either. This may be because some players have moved teams? Again, this is highly misleading, and removing the totals rows from both tables might be best.

--Done removed total row.

• ESPN Cricinfo is not italicised in Ref #1, but is thereafter. In Ref #12 it is just listed as "Cricinfo"

--Done

• Refs #8 and #9 need publisher and location added, and need to be consistent with each other. Also, there is a stray "=" and """ in Ref #9. What is "PTI" for Ref #9?

--Done replaced them with Cricinfo.

Unresolved comments from Harrias ^talk

• MOS:FLAG
  suggests that flags should only be used in tables with the country name attached to them. For example, at this size, it is not immediately obvious whether McCullum is an Australian or a New Zealander. Personally, I'm not convinced that the player's nationality is relevant to this table anyway, as the players are representing a domestic team, not their country. Also, for sportsmen, the flag should representing sporting nationality so if you are including them, Gayle's should be West Indies, not Jamaica.

--Done

• You've changed Gayle's flag, but the first part of my point is still unresolved.

Removed all the flags.

Harrias ^talk 13:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph needs more references to support the statement it makes.

--Done

• As the lists are sortable, you should state in your final column that "The list is initially organised in chronological order." (without the italics). Similarly for the final table being in alphabetical order.

--It is already there in last para of the lead section.

• No, it states that they are organised, not that they are initially organised.

--Done

Harrias ^talk 13:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look.--Vyom25 (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly technicalities to work on there, although the lead in general could do with a polish. Harrias ^talk 11:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments I have started working on it.--Vyom25 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done so far. I have some issues with the quality of the prose in the lead, I don't feel it meets the required level for featured content, and is certainly short of "professional standards of writing". Harrias ^talk 13:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look now it was the only way I could unwrap the text. Because table is very large.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done some copy-editing. Hope that makes the prose fine. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Made further copy-editing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]