Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/February 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 22 days, significant problems not addressed and no recent attempts to address them. Delist -- Scorpion0422 04:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found another one that has no referencing to speak of except 3 weblinks with unexplained reliability. Definitely doesn't seem to meet current standards. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Citations aren't needed if there is a general ref covering them (ie. Hart Memorial Trophy). That being said, there usually should be at least one citation on the page, and all of the current refs just link to a news or information site and don't give any specifics. A ref should give a specific link to a page, rather than leave the user to find it, so right now I think it fails 1c because the information is not easily verifiable. -- Scorpion0422 15:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added references for all lists. I wasn't quite sure where to put the references where it is for the whole list, so I've put them in the introductory paragraph. If there's a better place for them, please let me know. Keep listed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both cricketarchive and cricinfo look pretty shady. Are they considered reliable sources? -- Scorpion0422 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are both totally accepted sources in the cricketing world. Cricinfo is the leading cricket website; Cricket Archive is the leading cricket statistics website. The only resources possible that are more authoritative are Wisden Cricketer's Almanack and Playfair Cricket Annual. However, they both come out with their statistics significantly out of date. What is your concern with the sites? Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Cricinfo is run by Wisden, who are the World's Cricket Encyclopedia. Cricinfo has lots of published cricket journalists and former international cricket captains and so forth writing for them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both cricketarchive and cricinfo look pretty shady. Are they considered reliable sources? -- Scorpion0422 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead also needs expanding (maybe add a sentence or two) and the references for the entire table should be switched to general references, like the ones used here. The prose at the beginning of the various sections need citations, because a lot of what is mentioned isn't in the source cited. ie. The prose under the "Men's One-Day International captains" section isn't discussed at the link provided. -- Scorpion0422 17:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Improvement needed - There needs to be more prose in the article discussing the stats and so forth and the current prose has quite an informal style etc. Also there are POV claims in the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]