Wikipedia:Peer review/List of bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets in Test cricket/archive1
List of bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets in Test cricket[edit]
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to go to FLC with the best version of this list. Look forward for your comments and suggestion.
Thanks, Zia Khan 23:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments by Cassianto[edit]
Seen your request on Sarastro's page, so thought I'd drop in.
- "Taking over 300 wickets across a playing career is considered a significant achievement in Test cricket." -- Who considered this?
- "Achieved" used in close succession. Could you think of another word?
- "As of August 2013, Sri Lankan bowler Muttiah Muralitharan..." -- Definite article would be better.
- There are two schools of thought on this, but personally I prefer "among" to "amongst", as the latter preposition is a bit old fashioned now. "Among" is also the preferred choice of both The Gaurdian and The Times here in blighty.
- I think the second image looks awkwardly placed.
- I don't think a full stop is required within the image caption.
I will leave the technical stuff for someone a bit more technically minded. -- CassiantoTalk 11:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments from Harrias[edit]
- The flags are in breach of MOS:FLAG, which states that the name of the country should be provided alongside the flag.
- The flags also mess up the sorting: the players should list alphabetically by surname.
- The "tiebreak" criteria should be specified: why does Lillee appear ahead of Vaas?
- The key is missing a number of the column titles, and some are labelled incorrectly: (Ave, Avg for example).
- As the title of the table is "Bowlers who have taken.." I think the row scopes should be the bowler, not the number of wickets. Harrias talk 12:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments by Rejectwater[edit]
- What is a wicket? Being able to understand this term is critical to being able to understand the article. I don't think a wikilink suffices. I really have no idea, and I doubt I'm the only one.
- Many of the date ranges in the Period column are not formatted properly. See WP:YEAR.
- "Ref(s)." should be "Ref(s)" (no period) and I imagine included in the key as well (there are several columns that have an unneccessary period after the column header).
- Image alt text. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples. Rejectwater (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
- Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.