Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries/archive1

List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries

This is mostly the work of User:Raven4x4x, and is the first-class cricket equivalent of List of Test cricket triple centuries. I've been looking at this on and off for a couple of months, but can't think of anything to add. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I've done a bit of copyediting, but I can't think of anything to add either. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment cannot support because references are cited in an improper manner. Please use {{cite web}}. Renata 13:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware that {{cite web}} was a requirement. I have added retrieval dates, if that is what you want. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's ok now. Renata 05:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: depending on the reader's date preferences, the format the dates are given in could be problematic, reading e.g. "18, 19, February 20" or "18, 19, 2/20" instead of the intended "18, 19, 20 February". I suggest that dates should be delinked? TheGrappler 20:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but I'm not aware of a neat way around this - either the dates are left unwikified, or the dates will looks wrong for anyone with the one date preference or the other (the article currently prefers the UK date - DD Month - over the US - Month DD; at least the default with no date preference still looks correct). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing wrong with not wikifying the dates! The only reason to wikify the date is so that it can appear in the user preference date format, but in this instance that would be a disadvantage. I think it would be fine to leave it in DD Month format; even if it looks a little odd to an American, it's not ambiguous like "DD/MM" vs "MM/DD" is. TheGrappler 19:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fine - I have boldly dewikified them -- ALoan (Talk) 19:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - {{ref}} is depreciated. Please use cite.php for notes. Right now there are 20 notes in the tables and only 10 notes in the footnote. Renata 05:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good spot. Fixed. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renata 18:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job by the editors, nice, complete and informative. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]