:OK, with regard to the bit about Anwar's score of 194, I acknowledge what you say, but based on that I would change it a bit. I would start that paragraph by saying "The first score of 180 in an ODI was achieved by Viv Richard in 1984" and then give the rest of the information about that, then say "Saaed Anwar broke the record in 1997 with the first score higher than 190" and then give more info about that. Then talk about Clark being the first to score 200. Does that make sense? BTW on the subject of Sir Viv, he is listed in the table twice and has a different forename each time..... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 15:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- @
ChrisTheDude: I think resolved now, but "C" in cricket used in the link because its specifying the game, Cricket, used a proper noun so capital is used, where as in other links its uses in phrase, One Day International cricket is used so small letter. And I will change the "unbeaten" runs, but don't find any reason why, its not a journalistic word used here, its a term of cricket, we use "unbeaten" when someone remains not out. Not a journalistic word used, for example "follow on", "appeal", "snick", "square cut or cut", "beamer" even "silly" is a cricketing term, looks journalistic but not at all when used in cricket.
Dey subrata (
talk) 15:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The article title is
Lists of cricket records, therefore it should appear in the "See also" section as
Lists of cricket records. There is no reason to change the title to have a capital C (or to take the s off "lists") --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 15:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Ok I am changing it. Coming to above point, the question will be raised why not 170 or 160, we need to consider a bench mark, its 200, so before 200 what is the score thats it, other wise, after a century thats 100, every number is significant in cricket. Just like why hat-trick which is just 3 goals is considered one of big achivement in football, because its because very few people can do it, right. Similary 200 run is very tough I must say near impossible thing to do in ODIs as there are 300 balls in ODI, and one idividual scoring 200+ runs means he need to face atleast 150 balls thats 25 overs, which is hell lot of balls and near impossible, you can see those few who did it are in recent years as the introduction of T20 happened, the strike rate of players seems to have increased due to different rule change and faster game which made it possible, otherwise, the great name that you have taken Sir Vivian Richards, he is that guy who have highest strike rate in Test(50+)(if you don't know, its a 5 days long game and on average 90 overs are thrown, on an average 200-300 runs are scored in an innings, strike rate is very low, its a different format) but that legend did maintained a 50+ strike rate which is tough, but Viv Richards could not score 200 runs in ODIs, and trust me he is one of the few Greatest batsman the cricket has ever seen, and he had the ability, so you know how tough the 200 runs to score. so yes I think its better to consider 200 as bench mark rather than any other score.
Dey subrata (
talk) 16:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- OK, I am not going to labour that point. I will see what others think.
- Other points:
- "held by Pakistani cricketer" - better to say Pakistani batsman, it's obvious he's a cricketer, given that the article is about cricket
- I will change.
- "Australian women cricketer" - still needs to be changed to "Australian female cricketer". Actually "Australian female player" might be better as per the above.
- ICC don't use "female" always use "women".
- "Australian women cricketer" is not grammatically correct, because "women" is plural, so you can't describe her as "women". If you prefer not to use "female" then the correct word to use would be "woman", not "women" --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 18:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- "In men's cricket Zimbabwean cricketer" - "cricket....cricketer" doesn't sound very good - change "cricketer" to batsman
- will change
- "managed to equal Anwar's record" => "equalled Anwar's record"
- will change
- "but failed to reach 200 runs mark" - well obviously if he scored 194 he didn't reach 200, there is no need to say this
- its because he was not out at that time,
- That doesn't matter. You don't need to say "he scored 194, but didn't score 200" because it's totally obvious that if he scored 194 he didn't score 200. It's completely redundant language. It's like saying "my son is 5'10" tall but he isn't 6' tall" - the second part is redundant because it's totally obvious from the first part --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 18:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- "after breaking Anwar's 194 runs record" - also unnecessary
- ok will remove.
- Refs after "age of 17" are not in the correct order
- ok will fix
- Same with the refs after "2015 Cricket World Cup"
ok will fix
- @
ChrisTheDude: fixed. The above two cases, can we add.."but failed to reach 200 runs mark as Zimbabwe reached the targeted score before he could achieve the feat"
- But they didn't win, they lost :-) You can't imply that he would have scored 200 had the innings not ended, because it had gone on for another over he could have been out for 195 or 196. It would be OK to say "Charles Coventry equalled Anwar's record against Bangladesh at Queens Sports Club ground in Bulawayo when Zimbabwe's innings ended with him on a score of 194 not out" That makes the point that he was "stranded" on 194 but doesn't imply that he would definitely have gone on to reach 200 if the innings had been longer --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 19:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Yup, they played the first innings :-)
Dey subrata (
talk) 19:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- @
ChrisTheDude: Please check, ok now?
Dey subrata (
talk) 19:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- For Belinda clark, what to do?? it really looks odd in cricket, female player, never heard someone saying such or in any article, always used women cricketer or in women cricket a player who bat is called "batter". Please let me know.
Dey subrata (
talk) 19:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- "Woman player" would be OK, but you can't say "women player" because "women" is plural, so you can't say "a women (player)". See for example
this, which refers to the "Australian Woman Player of the Year" award --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Yup correct, it should be "woman".
Dey subrata (
talk) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
|