Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/English national cricket captains/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed 21:54, 1 April 2008.
I believe this article fails criteria 1c because all of the current refs just link to a news or information site and don't give any specific pages. Thus, the information is not verifiable. As well, none of the prose has citations. -- Scorpion0422 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, fails referencing requirements completely per FLRC nom. Lead appears to be completely unreferenced with the current style, and the references give absolutely no specifics as to where the information came from or how its used. Impossible to tell what is unverified and what is properly sourced. List has extremely odd format with two reference sections, one sitting in the middle of the article! Fails basic MOS requirements. Collectonian (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentHas WP:CRIC been notified? Verifying all the numbers would almost certainly be made trivial by looking in Wisden, listed as a general reference, which is the cricket reference publication. I'm sure a WikiProject Cricket member with access to Wisden would most likely be able to make short work of converting refs to inline cites. For someone with the relevant material available, reaching the criteria should be easy enough, which makes me think that raising concerns on the talk page might have been sufficient. As it is, I have made a start to inline referencing for some of the totals, a task involving much repetition of refs, which is probably why general references were used in the first place :) . Oldelpaso (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- yes -- Scorpion0422 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick archiving talk pages never cease to confuse me. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And another comment, I have no problem with using general sources, but this one just links to the main pages of some cricket sites. And part of the reason it was nominated is because several other similar lists were recently delisted over similar concerns. -- Scorpion0422 03:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick archiving talk pages never cease to confuse me. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- yes -- Scorpion0422 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.