Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tied One Day Internationals/archive1

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 Crisco 1492 00:53, 26 August 2015 [1].

List of tied One Day Internationals

Featured list candidates/List of tied One Day Internationals/archive1

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 18:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A decade-old list, I've completely re-written the lead and worked on the table and formatting stuff. Look forward to comments and suggestions, as always —Vensatry _(ping) 18:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You abbreviate ICC but never use the abbreviation.
Why not link England and Australia cricket teams in the lead?
" if it ends up " maybe "if it concludes" or at least remove "up".
Duckworth and Lewis should be separated by an en-dash.
"There are also two matches where the scores ended level, but the team which had lost fewer wickets was declared the winner." was this a local rule change that over-ruled the ICC definition?
- Guess it was a local rule. Can't find sources for the same, anything from your side? —Vensatry _(ping) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The first tie in ODIs happened" bit awkward reading for me "The first tie in ODI history took place..."
Why not link Aus and WI?
" occurred after a gap of five years during the second match" the way that's currently written it could be inferred that gap of five years took place during a match...
"Starting from 1991, a further 30 ties have occurred in ODIs, more frequently than ever before" not keen on this really, and I imagine that more ties occurred because more matches were played...
- Added a source and rephrased the bit. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Australia was involved in" instead of was, maybe "has been" (or BritEng "have been")
Kingsmead cricket ground -> Cricket Ground.
Some of the notes make claims which need referencing, e.g. Note A.
Note G - overs, not over.
Not sure you need to relink D/L method every single time it's used.

That's it from a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the comments —Vensatry _(ping) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian

Vensatry, I only had a few comments for you regarding this list. Overall, fantastic job researching and crafting this lede and list! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first statement in the first sentence of the lede where the term "One Day International" is defined should have an inline citation at the end of it.
The image of the Australian team is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is acceptable for use here. Both captions are suitable.
Over (cricket) should be wiki-linked to the "over" in 40-over, since it comes before the next usage of the term in the lede's prose.
In the last sentence of the first paragraph, two matches are mentioned but no specifics are given. Is there a way to include more information here regarding those two matches? I know this content is below in the table, but this could be elaborated further in this sentence.
Bangladesh needn't be wiki-linked in the final sentence of the lede.
All the images included are licensed appropriately and are suitable for use here; and all images have acceptable captions in keeping with FL standards.

@West Virginian: Thanks for your review. Hopefully, I've addressed all of them. —Vensatry _(ping) 07:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Vensatry, congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fine work on the list. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments'

"There are also two matches where the scores ended level..." -> There have been two occasions where a match has been tied, that the team which had lost fewer wickets was declared the winner.
"the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack called..." called makes no sense, change to stated
"occurred in till..." in till -> until
I would move the green key indicator to before the table so the reader knows what it represents before they view the table

Other than these looks good. NapHit (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: All done. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry _(ping) 05:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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