• In the table, remove the space before ref 14.
• Leo IV, O.S.B.: Some kind of punctuation is needed before ref 33.
• One thing I see across several note entries is that one ref is often used multiple times, when it's the only one being cited for that note. When that happens, it's fine to just have one cite at the end of a note.
• Ref 36 should have a p. instead of pp., since it's a single-page cite.
• Refs 65 and 66 could use a p. and pp., respectively, for consistency with the other Reardon cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I have remedied these. Savidan 15:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You say "It existed from 1997 to 2004" but the infobox says it was created in 1996.
• The use of "electoral district" four times in consecutive sentences makes the prose rather bland.
• 36th Canadian Parliament is overlinked in the lead.
• "House of Commons again expanded." which was when?
• 152 km² -> convert to Imperial as well.
• "(Bill C-69)" not keen on this kind of inline linking, use a proper citation.
• " district in BC" if you want to use an abbreivation, use it consistently and put it (BC) after British Columbia for the avoidance of doubt.
• Why wasn't the 1996 census used to estimate electors at the 1997 election?
• diennial -> looks to me that the census happens every five years, not every ten.
• Last para of "History and demographics" is unreferenced.
• Member of Parliament section is unreferenced, and what do the colours mean? If it's the party, then the party name should be within the colour box (see WP:ACCESS).
• " 1997 election" is all wikilinked, "1993 election" just 1993 is wikilinked. Be consistent.
• Expenses -> table heading is Expenditures.
• Ref 1 should use an unspaced en-dash, not a spaced hyphen for the year range.
• Ensure MOS:DTT is met, row and col scopes etc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for your notes. I think I took care of all these issues with these edits: [4] Btw, the "decennial census" is a defined term in legislation referring to the census in 1991, 2001, etc. The mid-decade census is different (mostly in terms of scope). I don't know why Elections Canada didn't use the 1996 census for the 1997 election turnout calculations - it is possible the results had not been compiled for the electoral districts yet. maclean (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Geography: "of the City of Surrey and the Barnston Island portion of the Greater Vancouver's Electoral Area A." Should either have the last "of" removed or be "of Greater Vancouver's Electoral Area A."
• History and demographics: Don't think multiple Surrey North links are needed in this section. One will do.
• "as well as increased the total number of seats in the House of Commons from 295 to 301." "as well as" → "and"? That's a little less wordy that the present version.
• Elections: Comma before "was an advantage" doesn't look like it helps the flow of the sentence. Consider removing it.
• "and Dysart accused the Reform Party of being bias in favour of seeing somebody from an ethnic minority group winning the nomination." "bias" → "biased"? Or would they say "bias" in Canada?
• Next sentence has two "being"s in four words, which looks really awkward. Can that be adjusted?
• The "and for struggling with an image of extremism" doesn't work that well with the rest of the sentence. I think removing "for" would be enough to solve the issue.
• "to avoid further splitting Indo-Canadian vote." Add "the" before Indo-Canadian?
• Would be nice if RCMP could be spelled out in its first use, and if the abbreviation was given in parenthesis immediately afterwards.
• "prevented active officers from being a candidate for political office...". Conflict between singular ("a candidate") and plural ("officers") elements. They should both be either singular or plural; mixing them like this doesn't help the prose. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made the suggested changes [5] What do you think of the article as a whole? Is there anything left wanting? or anything confusing about why its there? maclean (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard for me to say, since I'm not used to reading political articles (I'm more of a sports guy myself). The content seems reasonable to me, but as I said I'm perhaps not the first editor you should ask. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There are numerous incidents where the slash is used inbetween years (1907/08, 1975/76...) as opposed to a ' – ' dash. The slash is used several times as is the dash, which makes it inconsistent. Change all to dashes. '05/06' should be 2005–06.

• I think I caught them all and swapped out with the ' – ' dashes. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Jack Smith is a dab link.

• Fixed. It appears to be a brand new Jack Smith, so it now links to Jack Smith (footballer born in Derby) as I don't have any information on when he was born, only where. Miyagawa (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "thier modern team strip of blue and white hoops" 'their' is misspelled.

• Found a whole bunch more of those typos, spellcheck must have been broken on the day I wrote this. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The team managed a mid-table placement", Is 'placement' the word you are looking for? How about "The team managed to finish mid-table..."

• Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "and reached the playoff final in thier second season" Playoff → 'play-off'. Another misspelling.

• Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Future England manager Terry Venables was appointed as manager on 14 October, 1980.", I'm not sure if including that Venables being the future England manager is really that relevant. Don't need to put a comma between October and 1980.

• Dropped the England part and fixed the comma. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "old foes" → "London rivals" ?

• Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 'courtosy' → courtesy

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You missed an extra 'T' in Lakshmi Mittal. – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The semi-colon after "playing in the West London League" should be a comma instead.
• "which are not counted against player's official statistics...". "player's" → "players'".
  • You removed the apostophe, when one should be at the end of the word (not before the s as before). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• History: "The team's name was suggested by E.D. Robertson as compromise between the two sides". Add "a" before "compromise"?
• Remove the comma in "1 November, 1890". Do the same in other similar instances.
• "However, eight placed Tottenham were elected instead". "eight placed" → "eighth placed"?
• "The 1982–83 season saw QPR return once more to the First Division, and finished in fifth place with Venables leaving to join Barcelona." For the structure to be correct, "finished" should be "finish" here.
• 03–04 should be 2003–04.
• Surprised that their most recent promotion to the Premier League isn't included at the end of the section. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Made those edits as stated - although added the line about the Premier League which was an oversight. Miyagawa (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One more while I'm here: In "but lost 1–0 in the reply courtesy of a penalty scored by Glenn Hoddle" from History, is "reply" meant to be "replay"? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, that was meant to be replay. Fixed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "originated... originated..." reads poorly.

• Changed the second occurance to "were founded". Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "They have won two divisional titles at the third tier of the English football league system, and two at the second" would rephrase, and surely give more prominence to the second tier titles?

• Rephrased this and grave prominence to the second tier titles. Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Worth considering useful links to "replay" and "friendly" for our US readers.

• Added. Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "as a compromise between the two sides" what did St Judes get in that compromise?!

• That's a darn good question. The source calls it a compromise - although I would have only thought it would have been a real compromise if "Rangers" was dropped too! I've removed part of that line including the compromise part as well... it just doesn't seem right. Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "was followed in 1908 by winning the Southern League" perhaps "was followed in 1908 by the club winning..."

• Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "This put QPR in the unique position of playing in the first Charity Shield " not unique as Manchester United played in it too.

• Reworded and removed unique. Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "They drew 1–1, only to lose...." who? last club mentioned was Manchester United.

• Replaced "They" with "Rangers". Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• a lot of noun -ing going on. In the past, it's been recommended to me for better prose to make it more active.

• Reduced the level of "ing"s quite a bit. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The normal fixtures list for the club resumed" don't think the "list" resumed, the fixtures themselves may have done.

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "when it was elected to join the Football League Third Division.[8] They finished third in their" from "it" to "they" in quick succession. This is always a sticky point, but that just reads too clumsily for me.

• Changed the "it" to "the club". Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "They were quickly promoted once more in" not really "quickly", just "were promoted once again in..."

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "only lasted for a single season" no need for "for" here.

• Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The following season saw them...." reiterate the club here, last person you mentioned was Terry Venables.

• Rewrote the line. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a link for "away goals rule" you could use?

• Surprised to find that there is an article: Away goals rule. Have linked it as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "runners up" or "runners-up"?

• Made it "runners-up" as standard. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "managed to avoid relegation" just "avoided relegation" is fine, "managed to" is redundant.

• Thats one of those annoying writing habits I have. I found another example of it in the paragraph prior to have, and removed both. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What happened in 57/58 when they were "promoted" to division 2? Then subsequently relegated... This doesn't appear to be noted in the lead...

• Oops, they wern't promoted - that was a typo in the table. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Page ranges, be consistent with year ranges and use unspaced en-dashes.

• Finally got ahold of the dash app and ran it through the article. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "in 2000–01" vs "In 2003–2004 " be consistent throughout with how you format these seasons.

• Ok, I think it should all be full years i.e. 2003-2004 now. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you changed your mind, they all seem to be 2003-04 now, apart from in the references etc... In fact, maybe check again. Image caption is full year-full year for Taraabt, but prose is full year-year without century in general... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, I switched it around following the comment by Struway2 below. Fixed the image caption. Miyagawa (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest the round sorts by prominence, i.e. from earliest qualifying round to final. Right now, QF (quarterfinal) sorts before QRs (qualifying rounds)...
• I'm not even sure how the Result column is currently sorting, should be similar to my previous comment though.

• As it has multiple cups for some years, do you think the column should be sorted by the most prominent cup or by the highest round out of the multiple cups for that year? Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Highest round in my opinion. Not for us to decide prominence of cups at a given moment in time... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Source:" should be "Sources:" The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "they set a record low score for the Division with only 21 points" odd turn of phrase, we don't tend to describe the number of points as a score.
  • Not addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to "when they scored only 21 points, a record for the division" Miyagawa (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to be picky but I still don't like that! Perhaps "when they ended the season on 21 points, a record low for the division"? I'm just trying to avoid the concept of "scoring points" which I simply think we don't normally say in UK football... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed as suggested. Thinking about it really - in UK football you score goals, not points! Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• wikilink "strip"

• Linked to Kit (association football). Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Think there's a bit too much detail about the recent money men: mention the club being bought out by Formula 1 owners Briatore and Ecclestone and steel magnate Mittal, but who joined/left the board and when is too much.

• I've removed the line " Lakshmi Mittal bought into the club shortly afterwards, with his son-in-law, Amit Bhatia, also joining the board." Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure that WP:YEAR would encourage seasons having the closing year written in full, where there's no change of century. Though it does encourage sports seasons, as periods of twelve months or less, to be written with a slash and not an endash, which is a new one on me and contrary to general practice in football articles (I'm not suggesting you adopt that style).

• Changed to the closing year in two digits - I realised that I'd used that format in the table anyway, so I should make the way I was doing it in the article a standard approach. As for the slashes... if I get a consensus to make the change, I'll go do it - but its the first I've heard of that too. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Key to divisions. "principle" should be "principal".

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Key to colours. Probably, Rangers's should be just Rangers', on the basis that if you don't say it as Rangersis, you don't spell it like that either. Might be easier to change to QPR's.

• Changed to QPR's as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In the positions column, some of the wartime league positions sort wrong (3rd after 23rd).

• Fixed - I'd missed three sort templates. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In all the columns containing dashes, some dashes sort high and some low.

• Sorted them all to be the same. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 1899–00 should be 1899–1900

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you use the non-sponsored name for the ZDS Cup/Simod Cup. Don't think the Mercantile Credit thingy ever had a non-sponsored name, so that one's OK.

• Changed to the Full Members Cup. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In the divisions column, where there's an arrow symbol, could you be consistent about whether you have a space before the arrow or not.

• Changed so that they all have a space before the arrow. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 1958/59 should be Div 3, not 2. You may want to re-check the count of seasons in each division in the lead.

• Fixed, and thanks for reminding me to check those numbers - they were off because of the typo. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes. What are the sources for notes f and h?

• Added. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In note k, wikilink goal average (or define it)

• Added the link. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• References. Page ranges should have an unspaced dash: see WP:DASH.

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In Ref#4, lose the excess dot in Queens Park Rangers F.C..

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• External links. Official Website shouldn't be capitalised.

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What are the sources for seasons after 2009?

• Added sources for the league and the two cups. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And the top scorers? Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Added missing citation. Miyagawa (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where "Other competitions" have a season article (UEFA Cup, some Full Members Cup and FL Trophy seasons) could you consider linking the result to the season article, as with FA/League Cup seasons.

• I've implemented the change for the Charity Shield, UEFA Cup, Full Members Cup and FL Trophy. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Think I probably meant linking the entry in the result column to the appropriate season article, and leaving the entry in the competition column linked to the main article for that competition. Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you add publication dates (dates of last update) to the RSSSF references. Those pages do change from time to time, when new info comes to light.

• Done, although I haven't been able to do it for one of the RSSSF references as there isn't a date listed on the page. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The 1917/18 one's wrong (shouldn't be the same as the other three). Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note n is wrong (you've copypasted without changing all the bits that needed changing).

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be helpful if the sources for the various columns were placed in the column headings, rather than as a string of links below the table?

• Moved the references into the table except for the general ref that covers most of the table. Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Table. Why does it only start in 1899? According to the history, they played their first competitive match in 1890 and entered the FA Cup in 1895.

• Because they only turned professional in 1899. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Further note: The official QPR history doesn't even have details of those earlier amateur leagues, and the stats only start when they turn professional. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not even the names of the leagues they played in? if they're really not available, then obviously they can't go in. But results in the FA Cup certainly are available. For completeness, as per criterion 3a, or as close to completeness as we can get in the absence of league information, don't you think those should be included? Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've searched and searched and added what I can find so far. I'll keep looking, but I have a feeling I might have to make a trip to the British Library to look at the computerised archives of the West London Observer which should contain the results from the earlier period (the newspaper created the cup and the league). Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't feel obliged to go to that much trouble, and thank you for making as much effort as you already have. It was the absence of the readily-available-online FA Cup results that particularly bothered me. As to the Amateur Cup, did QPR enter in seasons other than the one you've added? because User:ChrisTheDude, who created the FL List of FA Amateur Cup winners, used to have access to a book with results from (I think) the first round proper onwards. I don't know if he owns the book or had it from a library, but if he still has access to it, he might be able to complete any other Amateur Cup performances for you if you asked him. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would imagine they are in it in other seasons, I only included the cups where I could find them in the Times online archive. Unfortunately the whole Queens/Queen's thing tends to throw the search engine, and searching for "park rangers" alone is well... lets say it's hard pressed to find the football related stories. :) And searching for Queen's Park brings up the Scottish team as well. I've been meaning to head down to the library anyway, but I'll have to ask the wife which night the reading rooms are open late (she works there). I know the search engines in the library are a lot better as I pretty much sourced most of List of FA Community Shield matches through them (which also reminds me that I really ought to bring that up to FL at some point when I've improved the history section!). I've dropped ChrisTheDude a message on his talk page, but thanks to that FL I should be able to reserve the book used as a source to refer to at the library too if he doesn't still have it. Miyagawa (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope some of this helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments and apologies for the delay in responding to the remaining ones as I've been laid low with a virus for the last couple of days so my edits have dropped off considerably. I'm feeling a lot better today and so I'll be aiming to resolve these remaining issues over the weekend - particularly trying to find information on QPR's league results prior to going professional. Someone somewhere must have written about the West London League, as I know Fulham was the most successful club from that division. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorting. The goals for and against columns have entries >99, which don't sort in the correct order.

• This should now be fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "India is among the ten Test-Playing Nations so India has permanent ODI status." Firstly this sentence needs a reference and secondly the sentence reads awkwardly so I would rewrite it -Done
• "He also holds the record of winning 62 Man of the Match awards, most by any player in the world" second part of the sentence is awful, needs rewriting. -have a look
• references should come after punctuation, so ideally there should be a comma before ref 10 -Done
• "India has highest score of 418/5 batting first and 347 all out batting second." so many things wrong with this sentence its scary. The more I read the more i'm unsure what it's supposed to tell me- have a look
• Link West Indies -Done
• Problem with player no 57, his cell is out of kilter with the table -Done
• As I mentioned on the t20 nom, i fail to see the benefit of the colours, they obscure sorting keys and its clear by the key what stats related to what discipline- Done

It can be removed but colours are used on all other similar lists.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so but it has no benefit, its clear what stats relates to what discipline. Plus the reader at the moment is unaware that those fields are sortable, so I think its best its removed. NapHit (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Table needs to comply with WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for more info

in what manner please suggest. ---Vyom25 (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add colscopes and rowscopes to the table so it complies with WP:ACCESS, have a look at some of other lists at FLC, they should have these. MOS:DTT explains how it should be implemented. NapHit (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's done--Vyom25 (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly the rowscopes need an exclamation mark before them, i've done the first cell as an example. FYI you can remove all the align centers that separate the players as I've added code at the top of the page which does this job, and the info needs to be on separate lines otherwise the whole table will be shaded. NapHit (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's done have a look.--Vyom25 (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• use sort dash instead of normal dashes Done

This hasn't been done, you still have normal dashes in the table. NapHit (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

now it's done initially I thought that sort dashes only used in year section and that was fixed by other editor. But now it's done have a look.--Vyom25 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• no, hs, balls, maidens, runs, wkt, ca and st columns don't sort properly -Done
• Don't force the width of the captain's table it leaves a lot of blank page which is not desirable -Done

I put the table in the centre of the page as well, like the main table before it for consistency. NapHit (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Figures should be aligned centrally in the table -Done
• There are some discrepancies between the table headers and the key, e.g. mdns in key yet maidens in table -Done

still one wrong you have ave and avg. NapHit (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah sorry missed one but now it's done.--Vyom25 (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unclear what is referencing the tables

Cricinfo is used for all the statistics. However, I can put reference next to every player like done here.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No just seen the references near the table, appears to cover everything, so this is fine. NapHit (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised this list had a peer review before it was nominated, where some of the The Rambling Man comments were not addressed, in light of this I suggest you withdraw the nomination as hits pointless having a peer review and not addressing comments made by one of the directors and then nominating the list. NapHit (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well sir I have addressed most of them. As for the suggestion on name sorting you can see here. Please let me make it clear that I don't mind withdrawing the nomination. But I would seriously like to work on your suggestions.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't addressed any of them, if you're not going to bother listening to advice then what is the point of nominating the list? If you address my suggestions then fair enough, but at the moment saying you've addressed most of them when you haven't at all, doesn't look very good. NapHit (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is some misunderstanding I haven't even started yet.--Vyom25 (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok I was talking about suggestions given by The Rambling Man not yours.--Vyom25 (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please have a look now I have fixed most of things you have pointed out. more suggestions are welcome.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the first things I saw when returning to the list was this sentence: "India is a full member of International Cricket Council it has permanent ODI status[1]." Perhaps try "India is a full member of the International Cricket Council and has permanent ODI status.[1]" -have a look also added 'a' before permanent

• Ref should be after the period, not before. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Vyom25 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "India played first ODI in 1974 since then a total of 193 players have represented the team." Add "its" or "their" before ODI and a semi-colon before "since", and this may be okay. Until then, it's shaky. -Done

• Should be "its" without the apostrophe. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Vyom25 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since 1974 India has played 792 ODI". Last word should be ODIs. -Done
• Currently, Sachin Tendulkar holds the record for playing most number of ODI matches with 453." Add "the" before "most", and consider removing Tendulkar's first name since it was given earlier. -Done
• Add a space after reference 6. -Done
• "India's lowest total in an inning is 54 runs." "inning" → "innings"? -have a look
• What's Sehwag's first name? -Done
• Captains: "A total of 21 players captained Indian ODI team so far...". → "A total of 21 players have captained the Indian ODI team..."? -Done
• Add "a" in "Kapil Dev comes second with 56% win rate." -Done
• In a later sentence on Dev, decapitalize "First". -Done
• Add space in M.S.Dhoni (at least one). Done
• Add another space after reference 18. -Done
• "Azharuddin and Tendulkar and Dhoni" → "Azharuddin, Tendulkar and Dhoni". -Done
• Formatting of access dates in refs 13 and 14 are different from the rest. It would be better if this was made consistent. -Done

Still needs more work before I'd be comfortable enough to drop my oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two more while I'm here: external links should go after notes and reference, and the hyphen in the title of ref 13 should be an en dash instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have a look--Vyom25 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]