Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace/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 promoted by Dabomb87 01:53, 11 December 2010 [1].

List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace[edit]

List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Grace was the first cricketer to pass 100 centuries, and was a turning point in the history of cricket. The list is modelled on the international century lists. Harrias talk 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*"He scored over 50,000 first-class runs" is it possible to put this into context for non-expert readers? This may be useful?
    • Reworded this sentence, how is it now?
  • "including over 120 centuries,[5][6] becoming the first cricketer to score 100 or more centuries" reads a little awkwardly...
    • Reworded with above.
  • "Disputes and variations in first-class cricket statistics centre around a number of matches in which W. G. Grace played, resulting in varying career statistics." this is in trouble too - you say "variations" then "varying" and repeat statistics too. It's not ideal I'm afraid.
    • Reworked this too, any better?
  • Last four sentences of para 2 all have "Grace" in them, I think you could substitute two of them for he or his or whatever's appropriate, as you never wander far from the subject.
    • Removed a few counts of 'Grace'
  • ", appearing for the Gentlemen" not sure you need the comma or "appearing".
    • Gone.
  • "but did not score his first century until his tenth match, scoring an unbeaten 224" score, scoring... repeat...
    • Removed the repitition.
  • MCC overlinked in lead.
    • Delinked on second use.
  • Not sure you should have two blank cells for the two yellow No. - they ought to sort in the same numerical order as date.
    • I'm not so sure, the date column allows sorting by date, and most statistics count 124 not 126 centuries these days. Leaving them blank allows them to sort together, making it easy to locate the two matches via sortability.
  • No 107 has a missing [
    • Fixed.
  • Ref 1 needs an endash for the year range.
    • Fixed.
  • Compare ref 8 with 11 vis-a-vis cricinfo/espn etc. Be consistent.
    • Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, have reworked a few of the sentences and fixed a lot of niggly bits I missed! Harrias talk 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Very picky prose point: in "a feat only achieved by six other cricketers", the "only" would be better positioned right before "six".
  • No need for two Cricinfo links in the lead. You're better off with one Cricinfo link and one CricketArchive link; the latter currently isn't linked in the lead.
  • In the table, I see an extra bracket in the location of Grace's 107th century. Sort the venue column and you'll find it easily. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A very good list which is highly accurate and I like the way you have dealt with the two disputed centuries without excluding them. I have just three points to make:
  • I think you should also link to Gentlemen and Players for consistency although the two teams do not have individual articles
  • Where Grace played for and against Rest of England teams, these should be shown as such because they were not the England national team as the entries signify and the England flag is inappropriate for these teams too. I know CricketArchive calls the teams "England" but they were actually "The Rest". You could call them England which would be historically correct.
  • I'm not sure about this. Both Altham and Grace refer to these matches as being 'England', and in addition to CricketArchive, that is what is verifiable.Harrias talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done, though, and maybe one day the parent article itself will be featured. ----Jack | talk page 17:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might add re "(Grace) is generally considered one of the greatest cricketers of all time" that in fact he is widely regarded as THE greatest cricketer of all time (see the main article).
    • I looked at the main article, but the looking around a number of websites and written sources, and I would say that generally he isn't considered THE greatest. I might be able to find one or two sources that claim it, but generally he has paled away behind Bradman and Tendulkar. I feel what I have put reflects the general mood better. Harrias talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point is "many modern statisticians" which should be "some modern statisticians". Remember that Wisden and Playfair still hold with the "traditional" figures and they have far more influence and credibility than the little-known ACS which has influenced the CricketArchive figures. ----Jack | talk page 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, changed to 'some'. Harrias talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Where Harrias and I differ is on subjective points that cannot be resolved and so his approach is satisfactory. How to define "England" outside international cricket is one to ponder. Overall, this is good work and deserves to be featured. ----Jack | talk page 15:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs tweak unless I misunderstood - isn't Gentlemen v Players a match, not a team? It doesn't make sense for that to appear in both "for" and "against" columns. I'm guessing it should be a piped link e.g. Gentlemen - takes you to the right article, but makes it clear which of the two teams is being specified in the For or Against column. TheGrappler (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, don't know what I was thinking when I did that! (Presumably I wasn't really thinking at all!) Fixed now. Harrias talk 08:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article currently gives both versions of the statistics, with the explanation that a couple of games are not universally considered First Class. But obviously some other people do consider them as such, so there are going to be discrepancies if someone looks this stuff up elsewhere. With that in mind, is it possible for the article to give a very brief explanation (in footnote form, perhaps?) of where a reader is likely to see which version of the disputed figures? I'm guessing that it's traditionalists who will hold out for the two disputed games, and more modern historians/statisticians who will disagree? TheGrappler (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, the article covers the main ones: Cricinfo and CricketArchive both use the shorter list, while Wisden the longer. Beyond that I don't really know myself! Harrias talk 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That'll do me fine :-) I imagine there is some underlying philosophical divide between the two "sides" but so long as an indication like that is given, I'm happy. The bottom line is that Wisden is being traditionalist, I guess. TheGrappler (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2010 (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_first-class_cricket_centuries_by_W._G._Grace/archive1&oldid=1089077493"