Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1928 Summer Olympics medal count/archive1


 * 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 not promoted 04:02, 8 April 2008.

1928 Summer Olympics medal count
Complete list of medals per country for the 1928 Summer Olympics, with a comprehensive lead section to introduce the data. – Ilse@ 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we still need an image of a medal... (like official report p. 130) Doma-w (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. We did it for 1896 Summer Olympics medal count, and we should do the same for all Games for which we can get a non- free (copyright expired) image.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "free image". Could one of you maybe upload one for 1928? – Ilse@ 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course that's what I meant (sorry), — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it could be uploaded under this license. – Ilse@ 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The designer of the medal, Giuseppe Cassioli (1865–1942), died less than 70 years ago. – Ilse@ 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments Let's try again...
 * My only issue is the number and type of references. WP:PSTS and WP:SOURCES says the article should rely on secondary and tertiary sources. -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•  @ 20:41, 25 March, 2008
 * For a sports tournament such as the 1928 Summer Olympics the authority of the organization is decisive in recognizing medals, and therefore I believe that the medal count can be based on these sources. – Ilse@ 22:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I oppose . I can't believe that there are no secondary sources laying around that can be used to verify. There has to be plenty of books on the Olympics, or even maybe a sports almanac and/or old newspaper articles? The above links are not guidelines, but policies, and it doesn't matter how good or complete it is, if it cannot be independently verified. -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  19:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when aren't we allowed to use primary sources as our main source? Under your logic, dozens and dozens of FLs would have to be delisted. -- Scorpion0422 19:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted this issue on Reliable sources/Noticeboard, because it involves several articles. – Ilse@ 10:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my interpretation of WP:PSTS is wrong, then. To me it says care should be taken when using primary sources and the information garnered from those should be verifiable by secondary sources, which Wikipedia articles "should rely on". -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#191970 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Someone over there told me that secondary sources are inherited from the parent article (!) Sounds ridiculous to me if that's true.. Anyway, it's still not enough for me so I'll change to neutral. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#800080 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  18:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, regretfully. I have followed these 45 pages for a couple of years, so I was intrigued at the possibility of promoting them to feature lists. However, in good faith I cannot support the nomination of this list in its current form. I think it fails criteria 1d of WP:Featured list criteria, as the inclusion of the art competitions is controversial disputed. Art competitions are given undue weight in this article, as they comprised only one of fifteen competitions at the Games yet the sub-total for them is given the same weight as the combined total for the other fourteen. Equally important, there is no contemporary source that can be used as a secondary source that includes these totals. I strongly feel that nothing more than a "see also" reference is appropriate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the personal opinion of Andrwsc is the same thing as a controversy. During the 1928 Summer Olympics the art competition was an official event, thus intended by the founding father of the modern Olympic Games, Pierre de Coubertin. Let me quote the article Art competitions at the Summer Olympics:
 * Art competitions formed part of the modern Olympic Games during its early years, from 1912 to 1948. The competitions were part of the original intention of the Olympic Movement's founder, Pierre de Frédy, Baron de Coubertin. Medals were awarded for works of art inspired by sport, divided into five categories: architecture, literature, music, painting, and sculpture.
 * The 1928 Summer Olympics medal count should include all medals awarded during the 1928 Summer Olympics. The quotation leaves beyond any doubt that this includes the medals for the events in the arts competition, because the art competitions were part of the Olympics from 1912 until 1948. Andrwsc would be right if the article was named 1928 Summer Olympics sports competition medal count instead. Thus, the argument that the nominated article fails criterion #1(d) does not hold. – Ilse@ 18:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about disputed instead of controversial. It's not just my own opinion; it's the opinion of other members of WP:WikiProject Olympics who have contributed to this discussion, and it's the consensus for these lists for the past few years.  Never in the history of these lists have art competitions been added until now.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the art competitions were officially part of the Olympics, but not included in the article, it would then fail on criteria 1b and 1c. Wikipedia should present true facts, not people's idea of facts, especially when those facts can be verified. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#daa520 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  19:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing the "officialness" (at the time) of the art competitions; in fact, I spent considerable time last week creating seven new articles in Category:Art competitions at the Olympic Games as I felt those events were under-documented on Wikipedia. What I'm objecting to is the "elevation" of those events so that the medal totals are presented in the same context as the totals officially endorsed by the IOC.  Even putting a disclaimer on this page is insufficient, in my mind; if a screenful of table data exists in this article, it is undue weight.  With respect to your request for secondary sources higher up in this discussion thread; none of those such sources (like the partial lists found here, here, and here) include the art competition events.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If these sources do not mention the art competition it does not mean that a featured list on Wikipedia should be incomplete. – Ilse@ 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think we need a section which explains the specialities of this medal count. In my opinion stats are really more interesting when they are described. Maybe:
 * The host Nederlands finished "only" eighth - the weakest finish of a host at that time (Belgium finished fifth 1920)
 * India won their first ever gold medal
 * The Philippines won their first ever medal
 * Hans Bourquin was the youngest gold medalist (men) 14 years and 222 days
 * Virginie Hériot was the oldest gold medalist (women) 38 years 15 days
 * also the section "Events contested" (now deleted) was a good explanation of the count
 * Let me clarify the scope of the article 1928 Summer Olympics medal count. Information about the number of medals or the ranking of countries should be in this article. Nevertheless, there should be made a clear difference between 1928 Summer Olympics medal count and an atricle about Medals at the 1928 Summer Olympics. Details about individual medals and about the events contested should be in the article 1928 Summer Olympics or in ... at the 1928 Summer Olympics instead. This being said, I think your first three bullets should be dealt with, the last three fall outside the scope of this article. Information about which countries are new on the list (medal count) is fairly easy to add. But it is not always possible to give reasons why a certain country is ranked on a certain position, other than: they won X medals. Do you know why "The host Nederlands finished "only" eighth"? I will add information about 'new countries' soon, but feel free to be first. – Ilse@ 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't read much of the above, but just looking at the list another time, I feel as though its quality has just gotten worse. There are hardly any citations, there is a separate medal table (which, as mentioned above, should not be there, in my opinion), and the information written out in prose is generic information not particularly about these games. Sometimes information in pages has to overlap, and I think that it is crucial for a medal count to explain the medals won at these games. I'm not seeing any explanations here. I am still not going to oppose this nomination, but as much as I would want WP:OLYMPICS to have another FL, I don't feel as though this is quality work, and accurately represents the depth that this page should theoretically have. I am certain there is information out there. Perhaps starting with a more recent medal page would make for an easier time getting the page to FL status. It would then serve as a good model. Jared  (t)  &ensp; 20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.