Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/National Hockey League awards

National Hockey League awards
Well, this is it. After a longish drive, many editors have written these amazing lists (mostly), to lead to a featured topic. All concerns will be addressed. Also, it may be useful to note that Stanley Cup is undergoing a copyedit to prepare for a possible FAC, and NHL Plus-Minus Award should be a featured list quite soon (actually when I stop being a bit lazy, and do some work. :.  Maxim (talk)  (contributions)  23:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Great topic, but for lists, we have so far required all items to be featured rather than just A-class. The Mark Messier Leadership award is exempt from this because its a new award and can't become a FL, but there is no reason why the Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award can't have a history added like all the others and become FL.  I can't support this while that one is still A-class.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would have to disagree, The Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award is too new to become a FL which is why I believe it is not one yet. --Djsasso 23:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True. You would have to wait at least a decade before Mark Messier Leadership Award, Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award and NHL Foundation Player Award are long enough to be of FL length. As well, there really isn't enough content out there for a history section for those pages either. -- Scorpion0422 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment On the Saving Grace award, the biggest problem with adding historical leaders prior to the creation of the award is a lack of sources. Goaltending stats have been haphazardly kept throughout much of the NHL's history, such that it is unlikely that a stat such as save percentage would have been reliably kept, if at all.  As a result, there would be large gaps of years where this data is not compiled, and in the best case, could be resolved only through original research, which may well be impossible anyway. Resolute 00:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good I've looked through it and it's good. Not fully up to scratch but it's nearly there and I see no reson to deny it featured status--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good actually Being unfamilier with FTs I assumed they all had to be close to FA but aparently they don't. So very strong support--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't all have to be Featured Content, some A-Class or GA's are acceptable. So is this a Support, Phoenix-wiki?  Maxim (talk)  (contributions)  13:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll concede that the three non-featured lists do not have to become FL considering how new they are, but I think Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award and NHL Foundation Player Award should at least have history sections written for them. It only has to be one paragraph, and Mark Messier Leadership Award managed to have a history section in addition to its lead.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done a history section for the Crozier, but there's not enough info out there to have a separate section for Foundation.  Maxim (talk)  (contributions)  16:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that's as much as I can reasonably expect. It defiantly meets the rest of the requirements no problem, so I'll support.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been on here long enough to close the debate, but I'd like to get the opinions of a couple more people not affiliated with any of the articles. Since promoting this would require including some non-FC articles, I'd like to make sure that we have solid agreement of support.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - So, the three un labelled are lists? So are they unable to be completed yet, and would get check marks? When would they be able to be improved to Featured List status? Judgesurreal777 17:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They are lists, but they would be unable to get to FL status for at least 10 years as there have not been enough winners, nor is there enough history there. -- Scorpion0422 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Good job with these articles. Though, I'd like to make you aware of copyright issues for the pictures of the trophies.  The images are borderline acceptable (or possibly not) per Commons:Derivative works.  Many of these images are mine, and they were put up for deletion last spring.  You can read the various comments and rationale by the closing admin here: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Hhof_campbell.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof vezina.jpg and other deletion pages.  Had I known about the derivative works issue, unlikely that I would have uploaded these.  I wouldn't be as bothered if someone else uploaded pictures of the trophies (since I think the burden is on the uploader), but uneasy about keeping these.  Also, I don't think they are the best quality pictures either. --Aude (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the images survived their vote for deletion and remain on the commons site, I would think that it turned out they were legal. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The links above were not correct. They should be Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Hhof_campbell.jpg, Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof vezina.jpg. These survived as "Keep, at least for now." This is a grey area.  Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof masterton.jpg, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof prince of wales.jpg and a few others were never closed by an admin. Had I known, I would avoid uploading anything that falls within a grey area like these do. --Aude (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Its complete, it meets the article quality requirements, and will make a great addition to the featured topics. The three ungraded articles should be maintained at a high quality until such time as they too can be featured. Judgesurreal777 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Pass - This has been here long enough without major disagreement. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)