Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Silver Slugger Award winners at first base

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [1].

List of Silver Slugger Award winners at first base[edit]

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils)
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the article criteria. This is article 2 toward a featured topic; for more details on the FT, see my sandbox and scroll to the bottom. I will certainly address any and all concerns. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment

  • Jeff Bagwell, formerly of the National League's Houston Astros, has also won the award three times (1994, 1997, 1999). - formerly of -> formerly with
  • Both are grammatically correct. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol should be accompanied by color; in this case, Member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum only has symbol
  • Symbols do not have to be accompanied by color; WP:ACCESS only suggests that colors be accompanied by symbols to alleviate problems with color blindness. A color-blind person has no problem seeing the dagger. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I don't follow. A color-blind person has problem seeing the asterisk but has no problem for the dagger??—Chris! ct 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe what KV5 is saying is that the guideline says that colour must be accompanied by a symbol but that there is no requirement for a symbol to be accompanied by colour. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is indeed what I meant. The color is the primary indicator for a positional leader; the asterisk is there to fulfill the requirements of WP:ACCESS in regards to the color. The dagger doesm't need a color, and I find it unnecessary to create a third color category throughout this set of lists, which I hope will eventually be featured, for someone who leads at their position and is in the Hall of Fame. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no edit bunching on either of the resolutions that I viewed this on; what are you using? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. I viewed this in both 1024x768 and 1152x864 regular resolutions in IE and in 1280x800 widescreen in Firefox and had no problems. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird. For some reasons when I look at this now, the edit bunching is gone. I guess this isn't a problem anymore.—Chris! ct 18:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref column does not need to be sortable

—Chris! ct 00:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008
Comment - Very good overall, but I do have one important question right away, particularly in light of recent FLC developments:
  • Why is a seperate list necessary when all of the winners are given at Silver Slugger Award? Is it for the statistics, or is there something else I'm missing?
  • Separate lists have always been available (they are currently split into AL and NL lists, if you care to search for them). However, until now, they have provided little information beyond winners' names. This expansion and merger is to give the reader an in-depth look at the players' statistics in the years that they won the award. Also, it's going to be part of a featured topic. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I'll ask Scorpion0422 about this, since he is the editor behind potential changes to the process and I want to see his opinion before supporting. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this list is fine because the table contains more information than what it is at the main page. The ones I object to are the ones where pretty much the exact same tables are duplicated and nothing is added (for example, the List of Universities in Canada). There is also precedent: List of Nobel laureates. -- Scorpion0422 01:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • National League doesn't need the link in the second paragraph.
  • Is Todd Helton's batting average record only for first basemen? George Brett and Tony Gwynn had higher averages in the Silver Slugger era, and those are only off the top of my head.
  • First basemen only, since they are the subject of this article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, would you mind clarifying that in the article? I'm thinking something like "Helton holds the record for the highest batting average by a first baseman in a Silver Slugger-winning season with the .372 mark he set in 2000." Giants2008 (17-14) 00:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mattingly caption could use a reference for the six grand slams. This photo is also causing edit bunching. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will check out the edit bunching, though as I said above, I have checked this on three resolutions in two different browsers and have not seen a problem. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempted to fix bunching. Ref added. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bunching templates made things all screwy, so I removed them and cut down on the number of pictures instead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Scorp has convinced me that the subject is viable, and the list meets all FL standards as I see them. Looks good to go, at least from my vantage point. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco
  • Lead looks fine.
Tables
  • The references should not be sortable.
References
  • The MLB references should have MLB Advanced Media, L.P as the publisher if you are going to have the work as MLB.com
  • The Brewers ref should also have MLB Advanced Media, L.P as the publisher.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They can work both ways, so you can do this or the other way.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Good work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • Something that I didn't pick up on the previous FLC, but is there any way to link "offensive" to a related baseball article?
  • "three players have won the award three times" One of my pet peeves, word repetition in the same sentence. Maybe "three players have won the award thrice"?
  • "Only one player has won the award "
  • "One father-son combination has also won the award"
  • "though it is only the third-best in the overall history of the award." This can be shortened and rephrased to take away some of the negative spin ("only"); also, I can't think for the life of me how "overall" is necessary for meaning: "and is the third-best in the history of the award."
  • "achieved by both Mattingly (1985)[6] and Delgado (2003).[5]" Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for an article to link offensive too. Additionally, I hate the word thrice. Furthermore, why are we removing all modifiers? It sounds like robot prose. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede on thrice, I suppose. On your last point: crisper prose. "also" is an overused additive term, "both" is redundant in those cases, and "only" is usually POV, let the facts/stats speak for themselves. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the link, the best I could find for now was Baseball rules#Batting team. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the link: Offense (sports) provides no context either. What about Batting (baseball)? On the prose: it still sounds robotic. I know that WP:BRILLIANT prose is no longer a "requirement" for FL, but it is still an WP:FA? requirement. I don't see why our prose is just "professional standard" (from WP:FL?) while FA prose is supposed to be "engaging". To me, there really is a difference. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Batting (baseball) works. On the prose: Look at it from a different point of view; adding those words back in don't help the prose or make it flow better, they just make it wordier, or redundant. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, regarding flow. Without modifiers, prose doesn't flow at all. Maybe it's just the German speaker in me but prose without modifiers sounds like a textbook exercise. I will remove them but I think it's something we should discuss if the criteria discussion is still going on. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Silver_Slugger_Award_winners_at_first_base&oldid=1143874400"