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 The Rambling Man 10:38, 30 April 2012 [1].

Doctor Who (series 5)[edit]

Nominator(s): Glimmer721 ^talk 22:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is now ready. This is my first FL nomination (aside for a co-nom), so this is fairly new to me, although it is more of an article than a list. If passed, it will finish a good topic of the season (all episodes are GA) and be the first featured (or good) Doctor Who season page, so I would like it to set an example for the others. I am aware that season articles sometimes go through GA instead, but I thought I would try here first. Thanks for reviewing in advance! Glimmer721 ^talk 22:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wow. This is a nice piece of work but it, in my opinion, is not a list. It's a potential FAC if anything, the list part of it being very minor. But with List of battleships of Greece being debated too, I'll just leave it as that for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wondering if there was a criteria for this. There's more FL season articles than GA and FA, so I figured I'd try here first. Glee (season 1) is also structured similarly with a lot of prose, so I sort of assumed this would fly, too. I guess I could make the books, DVDs, and games more of lists, but I do prefer prose, and I'd take this through GA and maybe an eventual FA if that's preferred. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this looks more like an article, list of episodes notwithstanding. Something to do might be to post at WT:FAC to see if anyone over there has any opinions on its article/list status... Dana boomer (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glimmer, are you still convinced this is an FLC or should you consider FAC? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking I'll start with GA first if that's okay, and then build up to FA in the future when I'm ready. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well in that case, unless you object, I'll archive this nomination, and wish you luck with the GAN! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Glimmer721 ^talk 21:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 09:23, 25 April 2012 [2].

List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers[edit]

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria and follows a similar design to current FLs such as List of Bermuda ODI cricketers (which was recently promoted). The list is also complete and as Hong Kong don't play at this level anymore, it is unlikely to change in the near future. It was previously a featured list nearly four years ago. Feedback most welcome! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. Why is the territory not playing anymore ? Jeremy (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The territory still plays, it's currently taking part in the World Twenty20 Qualifier in Dubai. They don't play ODIs anymore, well they never have in their own right, but were twice accorded ODI status for the 2004 and 2008 Asia Cups. Non-Test teams were not included from this year onward, so this years Asia Cup is an all Test nation affair. Hong Kong do have a chance next year to gain ODI status in their own right in the 50-over World Cup Qualifier. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~"and Tabarak Dar. Dar...". I know it's hard in a case like this, but do try to avoid having a repetition like this from one sentence to the next.~~
~~The comma after "Three players have each taken 4 wickets" would be better served as a semi-colon.~~
~~Title of ref 4 needs an en dash to replace the hyphen.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response - rejigged the Dar sentence. Semi-colon put in, en dash added to ref 4. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: The one image used appears to be free and is properly tagged. Good raise 11:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

I'm not keen on the first sentence: while a list doesn't need the subject emboldened at the start, I just feel the current start is a little weak, but others may disagree.
The BBI column sorts incorrectly, 2/62 should be listed below 2/51 for example, not above.
In the Runs column, James Atkinson sorts in the wrong place.
Given none of the players got centuries or half-centuries, I'd remove those columns altogether.
I'd suggest that the Cricinfo links should state "ESPNcricinfo", given that is the address of the site, and the title it "trades" under. Harrias ^talk 19:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I've changed the opening sentence a little, reads a little more simply and flowing now... well I hope! I've added ESPNcricinfo. Corrected Jamie Atkinson, he now appears in the right place. I have removed the 50s and 100s columns. I'm trying to fix the BBI column, but after a 12 hour ward shift, I'm nigh on braindead! I'll have a go at that task on the weekend. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you suggest I fix that so that the BBI column sorts correctly? Any ideas Harrias? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have a look at how I've done it on the List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers page. Essentially, it is w/yy where xx is 100-yy, and w is the number of wickets taken. If you are still having trouble, let me know, and I can go through and do it for you! Harrias ^talk 20:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Would switch the opening sentences to explain what ODI is before talking about HK ODI players. Would then take the opportunity to say that HK played in ODIs between 2004 and 2008 and that during that time 20 players represented their country. This will also make sure you don't use the full version after you've abbreviated it. - Done
Consider making (pictured) italicised (like you seen on the main page) in the lead image caption. - Done
"ever" is redundant in the caption. - Done
"An ODI differs from Test matches in " - sing vs plural. - Done
" gained ODI status in their own right, but have been accorded ODI status twice" confused, so the "accorded ODI status" was temporary? Was there a reason for this? - Done, well explained why it was only accorded on a temporary basis.
Second para has a lot of short, disconnected sentences which really impacts on our goal of "professional prose". Suggest you look at ways to merge some of the short sentences and thus improve the flow. - Done
"Their next ODIs..." comes after a reference to Pakistan. You should be clearer here. - Done
"Should they qualify for the 2015 World Cup their matches in the World Cup would have ODI status." cited? - I think it's so blindly obvious that no direct sources exist! I can't seem to find any.
"In total, Hong Kong played four ODIs.[5] Three players played in all four ODIs: Afzaal Haider, Najeeb Amar and Tabarak Dar." consider merge, "Hong Kong played a total of four ODIs,[5] with three players representing the country every time." (or similar), just thinking on my feet... Just another example of merging a couple of short sentences about a similar topic to improve the flow of the prose. - Done
"Of the 20 players who have appeared in ODIs for Hong Kong" by now we should know we're reading about ODI HK cricketers, so this could be "optimised". - Done
"Three players have each taken 4 wickets" 4->four and this may read odd to those who don't realise that wicket-keepers don't take wickets. - Swapped around, so bowlers are mentioned before wicket-keepers.
Sorting by "First" or "Last" in Safari gives four separate results with each of four clicks.
"Win% – Winning percentage" in the key but where in the table? - Done
Same with "100" and "50"... - Done
BBI col needs work, 2/62 is not as good as 2/51 for instance (when sorting BBI from best to worst).

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A long list Rambling Man! I'll get round to these shortly I hope, fairly snowed under at the moment. I'll endeavour to find a free moment this weekend. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Done some, will have a go at the rest hopefully later today. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 09:23, 25 April 2012 [3].

List of battleships of Greece[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination restarted: 16:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Another one of my warship lists, this one covers the four battleships purchased or ordered by the Greek Navy shortly before the outbreak of World War I, only two of which were delivered. These ships, former American pre-dreadnoughts, survived until 1940, when they were sunk by German divebombers. This list will complete the Good Topic seen here, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review here. I feel this list is very close to FL quality, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring it meets the criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that the only two images in the article are of the same class of ship, but this makes sense, since those were the only two delivered. Still, could it be possible there's photos of those ships under construction? Or one of the same class? Though that might be a little too far off the topic. --Golbez (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't ever come across any photos of the two unfinished ships under construction. There's File:Early Salamis design.png, but I felt that since it wasn't the final design, it shouldn't be used in this article. The only illustration of the final design for Salamis is copyrighted. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strike that, I just found this illustration of a completed Salamis in the German Navy from 1916. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RexxS:

The first column of the key table contains bold text contravening MOS:BOLD. They either need to be marked up (and scoped) as row headers, or rendered in normal weight. Is the table format superior to a simple unordered list for the purpose of explaining the meaning of column headers in the main tabels?
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The accessibility of the images would benefit from having alt text per WP:ALT.
Why is this list not a table with four entries? The functionality of such a list would be improved as it then could be sortable by different criteria in the same way that Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps does.

I'm aware that other FLs exist that resemble this FLC, but since our featured content is meant to represent the very best that Wikipedia can produce, should we not always be striving to improve on what already exists where we can? --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we should. Existing FLs are meant to be surpassed. Good raise 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the bolding, this might qualify under "Table headers and captions", and I personally feel that it's much easier to read while bolded (try unbolding it in the edit window and previewing it). ALT is not a requirement, should Parsec not decide to do that. The lists of battleships/cruisers have a common format – see List of battleships of Germany, List of battleships of Austria-Hungary, or List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy. I'd have no objection to improving them, but if you put it all in one table, you will have all the information on the ships in two different places. Is it not enough that armament, armor, speed, etc. will in almost all cases trend upwards as the reader gets to the more modern ships? (serious question, no sarcasm intended!) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOSBOLD states "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases: Table headers and captions ... In the first two cases, the appropriate markup automatically adds the boldface formatting; do not use the explicit triple-apostrophe markup". I don't think that could be clearer.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images states "Images should include an alt attribute, even an empty one, that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users". ACCESS is part of the MOS and compliance with MOS is required by WP:FLCR #5. Alt text is not optional here, and I would ask the question why anyone would want to omit simple steps that would improve an article if they wanted the article to be as good as possible?

The whole point of a list to gather together and summarise in a functional manner multiple examples of a given subject so that they can be compared, contrasted and referenced in a single place. Scattered multiple tables with exactly the same format defeats the object of having a list. You might as well just write prose.

I hope that makes my comments (not objections) clearer. --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should have read farther down that page. ;-) Still, I think an exception for this could be warranted, as its not common to have a stand-alone table, and it makes it muh easier to read (though I understand that's relative).

In my opinion, the captions are enough here. "Illustration of Salamis had she been completed during World War I and taken over by the Imperial German Navy" is the content of the image, aka what ALT is trying to do. I suppose "ship at rest" could be added to the "Kilkis while still in US Navy service" photo, but I don't think more is necessary.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. The FL community has passed other lists similar to this one, so I think consensus is that they are okay, but that can always change. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid I can't agree for the simple reason that while the article can be improved by simple changes, it cannot be considered one of Wikipedia's best. There is guidance at WP:DTAB on how to mark up tables appropriately and I see no reason why that advice should not be followed. You also give no reason for an exception to MOSBOLD being made, neither do you offer any justification for breaching MOS by not supplying alt text as required – a caption, although part of alternate text, does not perform the same function as alt text and the guidance at WP:ALT needs to be read carefully. Perhaps I should remind you that the Manual of Style enjoys considerable consensus across the whole project and deviations need to made for good reason, not just editor preference. There are many visually impaired visitors whose experience on Wikipedia is degraded by thoughtless inattention to good accessibility practice, and it is not in the interests of the Featured content process to ignore those visitors. You do this candidate no favours by encouraging the nominator to accept substandard practices, no matter how common they may have been in the past. Energy would be better spent bringing up the standard of old lists that could be easily improved. --RexxS (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which I fully understand, and I assure you that I am reading ALT carefully. Please see WP:ALT#Captions and nearby text and/or Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images/Archive 4#External reviews. There are many instances where captions can fulfill the same role as alt text. You're also giving no reason for blindly following a guideline that, in this case, will make things more confusing for a reader... which is exactly what ACCESS is meant for. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you don't seem to be displaying the understanding that you claim. Nevertheless, reading ALT is helpful, but only if you can take in the issues presented, rather than looking for loopholes to justify poor practice. The point of alt text is that it is supplied to non-visual agents in place of the image; that includes spiders (like Google), text-only browsers (used by visitors with limited bandwidth), as well as screen readers. Perhaps I can point you to Jared Smith's comments that you linked in Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images/Archive 4#External reviews where he states In most cases, this image would be given empty alternative text (alt=""), but because the image is linked, it must be given alternative text - probably alt="Vincent van Gogh" or similar. A more optimal approach would be to combine the image and the text caption into one link with the image being given empty alternative text. Now, Jared doesn't know that the MediaWiki software doesn't allow us to combine the image link and the caption, but I think you realise that. The upshot is that on Wikipedia, it is rare that no alt text should be presented – an image otherwise leaves a link that makes little sense to non-visual agents. Alt text does not need to be complex, but in most cases it does help to supply it. Why not have a look at other quality websites (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ for example), and see if you can find a single image that doesn't have alt text? I know I can't find any – even where captions or nearby text contain similar information, there is still alt text. So please, pretty please, let's stop making excuses for editors to do the wrong thing and get down to improving our articles. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making excuses, Rex – all I am saying is that the captions suffice for the alt text, and adding anything more would simply be a hassle for those with screen readers. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Violates criterion 3b. Can reasonably be included as part of List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy. Good raise 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that should read "violates your interpretation of criterion 3b" with a link to WP:FL?. Let's let others decide for themselves. Also, your comment is simply not true – if that article were upgraded to FL standard, I counted at least 38 items in just the first six sections (out of 20 content sections) that would need one to two paragraphs of text. That would make for one really long article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it reads just fine. I try not to insult the readers of my comments by pointing out and linking to the obvious. Anyway, you are correct in that the article would become really long. However, that does not necessarily mean that its battleships section would need to be split off. Good raise 23:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that we can all agree that FL treatment of the list of decomissioned Hellenic warships would be too large and would require forking to reduce things down to a manageable size. That said, the logical way to break down that long list is by type (battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc., which this list is the first piece. I would oppose trying to combine battleships with the next largest size of ship, cruisers, because they have vastly different roles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it would require some splitting. And once the larger sections (Destroyers, Torpedo boats, Landing ships, Submarines) have been given the SS treatment, the list would likely be of a decent size. Good raise 23:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        And how would we then characterize the resulting list after those sections were broken out into their own lists? Decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy except for destroyers, etc? I'm not all sure that it would be workable to summarize the lede sections of the subsidiary lists. However, if you can point me to any example of what you mean, I'd be grateful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It would still be List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy. To give an example: List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients does not itself list all recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Good raise 00:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm a fan of consistency, ie a list for every warship type (or a link to the article if there's only one), than arbitrary splits for just some of the categories. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Lists of two ships? Great! Looking forward to opposing their FLCs. Good raise 03:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that was exactly what I was attempting to imply. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - content looks good. If you want another source, this has a bit on the Grecian/Ottoman dreadnoughts. Otherwise, my only thought is that a bit more on the arbitration could be given, as right now it's a little threadbare. I'd understand if you don't have sources that cover that obscure information, though. The images are all in the public domain. Spotchecks of Conway's 1906 revealed no plagiarizing, etc. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I didn't see any problem the last time and I still don't. While the entries could reasonably be included elsewhere, the article itself couldn't feasibly be consumed by another article without serious bloat issues or the loss of useful and verifiable information—if all of the entries on List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy were given this level of attention the article would definitely qualify for forking and we'd be right back in a circle again. I do agree that a precedent doesn't have to be hard-and-fast established as to size or scope, especially not at the smaller end such as this, but I believe this one passes the post comfortably. GRAPPLE X 20:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – While the content itself looks good, I remain unconvinced that this page meets criterion 3b, but my viewpoint is slightly different than Goodraise's. I'm not sold that this should be thought of as a list to start with. If you changed the title to Battleships of Greece, I'd be perfectly happy to consider this an article instead. There aren't many entries in the tables (4 is fewer than in any FL I can think of right now), and there aren't enough prose entries for me to consider it a list in that way (like in List of culinary nuts). To me, this is slightly more of an article than a list, and along with the 3b concerns discussed at length already, I don't believe this meets the FL requirements (which doesn't mean it's not good work; it is). Giants2008 (Talk) 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have hoped this and this were clear enough. Apparently not. I have no intention of pursuing this nomination, please archive it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 07:58, 10 April 2012 [4].

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Harbhajan Singh[edit]

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 18:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. It is based upon existing FL, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Anil Kumble. Thanks. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 18:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I read through the prose last night and made a few corrections to grammar, and I think I moved a sentence around, but perhaps I'm thinking of a different list! I'll just check out the rest. Could "five wicket haul" be linked to the article of the same name? "during the 6th ODI of the England's tour" - remove the second "the". Not essential per WP:NUMBERS, but perhaps "forty three" would be better just as 43 instead, likewise with sixteen, though not important! You have mentioned the dates he made his Test and ODI debuts, perhaps also mention the date his T20I debut came on. Only link national teams in the prose once. Australia for example is linked three times and England twice. In the main table, Richard Dawson currently links to an English comedian. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I read through the prose last night and made a few corrections to grammar, and I think I moved a sentence around, but perhaps I'm thinking of a different list! I'll just check out the rest.
Could "five wicket haul" be linked to the article of the same name?
"during the 6th ODI of the England's tour" - remove the second "the".
Not essential per WP:NUMBERS, but perhaps "forty three" would be better just as 43 instead, likewise with sixteen, though not important!
You have mentioned the dates he made his Test and ODI debuts, perhaps also mention the date his T20I debut came on.
Only link national teams in the prose once. Australia for example is linked three times and England twice.
In the main table, Richard Dawson currently links to an English comedian. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. "Five wicket haul" linked to Glossary of cricket terms#F. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the ODI fwh table, I have changed the 2006 fwh to number 2, as it was incorrectly numbered as his first fwh. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All used images appear to be free and properly tagged. Good raise 12:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In the lead, after the first instance of his name, you refer to him as simply Harbhajan. No need to repeat Singh in the captions in that case.
Since you're being very precise with the number of wickets in each variation of the game in the lead, you probably should have an "as of" because this data could quickly become stale.
Why have his ODI debut noted before his Test debut? Particularly when he made his Test debut before ODI.
Our article for the stadium is M. A. Chidambaram Stadium.
"during the 6th ODI of England's tour " which tour? There's probably an article about it you could link to as well...
"failed in ensuring India's " failed to ensure.
Fifer number 13, did he really get 6 wickets in 3.1 overs while conceding 78 runs??
Fifer number 4, expected economy to be rounded up to 2.01 but perhaps we always round down, I can't remember...
In the past, when sorting by wickets, it has been commonplace to ensure that when wickets are tied, they're then ordered by the fewest runs conceded (when in descending order). That's not the case here by the looks of things.
Similar to above, our article on the stadium calls it M. Chinnaswamy Stadium.
And R. Premadasa Stadium.
When sorting the Test table by date, 1 and 2 swap order if you sort it four times...!
As do 9/10 and 12/13.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"He has claimed most of his five-wicket hauls against Australia, seven of them". Seven isn't most of the hauls when there are 28 of them total; it's only 25 percent of the total, and "most" implies a majority.
Try not to start a sentence with a number like in "16 of Harbhajan's international five-wicket hauls...".
Lead photo's caption could use a citation and alt text.
I only count four five-wicket hauls in losses, not five.
Is he commonly known by his first name? If not, he should be referred to by his last name after the full name is first given. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – while reviewing this for DYK I found a couple of errors in the table (a couple results were given inaccurately), but I've fixed these. I'd advise you to double-check this just to make sure you've not made any more little mistakes. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Images could do with alt text
I don't see any reason why the font size in the table is less than full size
An exclamation mark should go before scope=row instead of a pipe

NapHit (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.