Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Blackhawks players/archive4
- 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 Matthewedwards 07:12, 11 April 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Teemu08
Toolbox |
---|
The bane of my Wiki-existence, this list is back at FLC for now the fourth time. Sorry if it looks a little bare-bones without pictures, but the list is already a whopping 109kb without them. The list is consistent with all of the other lists of NHL players and features every player to ever don the Hawks uniform. There's a few redlinks, but its certainly not overbearing. Teemu08 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Weak oppose - fails WP:WIAFL 2 and possible 1. The lead is too short. See recently promoted lists for example.—Chris! ct 20:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
|
- Support—Chris! ct 19:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthewedwards asked me to revisit this FLC due to recent criteria change and I still think it fulfills the criteria, so I stand by my support.—Chris! ct 05:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chris.-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lead lacks, referencing is very scarce, and the formatting of the table also lacks to not meet WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Much better than when I first saw it, the table and references check out up to standards, as does the lead. However, I would like to see the lead expanded a bit more, I just think its too short IMO.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - For an idea of how to expand the lead, one good example is Nashville Sounds all-time roster, which states what players have won important awards. This might be a good way to squeeze out a third paragraph. The lead needs references for facts not covered in the list itself. Also, I'm unsure of the reliability of Hockey Goalies.org. I've seen that site questioned at FAC before. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From WIAFA: "(a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". Player awards are not mentioned anywhere in the subsequent text and therefore would be irrelevant in the lead. For what its worth, I plan on spinning off award winners into their own article once I'm done with this one since there's so many. Teemu08 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, this is FLC. From Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, "It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject" (emphasis mine). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
|
- Don't separate symbols from their entries (no space between dagger and name, etc.). If you think it looks cramped, superscript the daggers.
- I tried this and it looks terrible. How about a non-breaking space instead? Teemu08 (talk)
- The issue isn't breaking; it's having a symbol next to its entry. It's just proper writing. Did you try superscripting? I've used that with a degree of success at List of Philadelphia Phillies team records and other tables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything new on this front? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue isn't breaking; it's having a symbol next to its entry. It's just proper writing. Did you try superscripting? I've used that with a degree of success at List of Philadelphia Phillies team records and other tables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried this and it looks terrible. How about a non-breaking space instead? Teemu08 (talk)
- Additional comment: "The franchise has had thirty-four players selected as captains"→34 per WP:MOSNUM. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/ttotdisplay.php?tid=35 a reliable source?
- The site has a bibliography which reliable sources and they have a strict policy of only accepting official documents to add stats etc. This source has been deemed reliable for many previously featured articles. -Djsasso (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good enough for me! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/nhl/chicago.html?Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments addressed. Hockeygoalies also cites their sources [8] and has been deemed reliable for other featured lists. EDIT: upon further review, I'm just going to delete it. While it was a big time-saver, the information there is redundant to the other sources. Teemu08 (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hockeygoalies is still being used as an inline citation. Also, you've mixed {{citation}} with the {{cite web/news/journal etc.}} templates; these should not be mixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call. I've swapped it out for a source from the official website. Teemu08 (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hockeygoalies is still being used as an inline citation. Also, you've mixed {{citation}} with the {{cite web/news/journal etc.}} templates; these should not be mixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that current and former captains should be denoted as such, as it is important information to know. This renders List of Chicago Blackhawks captains unnecessary, which is in line with the stricter content forking guidelines of the new FL criteria, which is about to be instituted. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean simply by colour coding, or by the addition of an extra column? I'm still not entirely sure if the captain's list is considered content forking because of length concerns and a list of captains does have independant notability (although maybe it's just because I'm a hockey fan). I included the List of Vancouver Canucks captains in my audit because it is reasonably short and the players list is 63,602, so a merge might be realistic whereas the Blackhawks are a much older team. These sports lists are tricky ones to judge though. Unlike the musician awards list, there is at least a standard where every team has these lists and they aren't just arbitrarily split off. -- Scorpion0422 16:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Captains are players, yes? Would it be possible to add footnotes to the player list, saying "player was team captain from X season to Y season"? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. I suggest adding both the color code and footnotes to denote who are captains.—Chris! ct 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that the new criteria has passed, I'll merge the captains into this article. It will take a little time though, so cut me a little slack on this one. Teemu08 (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Captains have been merged into the article. Teemu08 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. I suggest adding both the color code and footnotes to denote who are captains.—Chris! ct 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Captains are players, yes? Would it be possible to add footnotes to the player list, saying "player was team captain from X season to Y season"? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would it be possible to note which players have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame? -- Scorpion0422 16:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments - Looks much better than when it first came here. In addition to denotations for captains and Hall of Famers, I'd like to see a couple of other things done.
Otherwise, good job getting this up to snuff. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - Would still like to see Hall of Famers denoted in some way, but I think it meets the standards as is. Nice work on such a long list. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm my support after the criteria changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. My Support for promotion stands.--Truco 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.