Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans/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 promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 28 July 2010.

2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is among the finest lists on WP and I hope this process will standardize the optimal format for these lists going forward. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Great stuff.  My only suggestion is that I think the current structure is a little confusing.  In the lead, I would describe what an all-american team is first, then describe the different organizations that grant all-american status, and then describe what a consensus team is.  The way the article is currently written makes it seems as if the consensus team is the focus when it seems the focus should be on all of the all-american ratings and the consensus is just an aggregation of that information in an interesting format. Remember (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Much better. Great job. Remember (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Why is "Men's Basketball" capitalized? I don't think "2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans" is an actual name for the group of players selected to these teams. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not averse to a page move to lower case. It just needs to be consistent with all the other seasons and properly changed in the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Detailed and a great read, but there is a lot of overlinking. It makes the tables hard to read, particularly the 'By Team' section.  I can see having players linked once in each section, but that mass of blue is tough to break down.  Other than that, it all looks good.  Canada Hky (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I delinked quite a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Everything's been addressed, much more readable. Canada Hky (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Personally, I think the consensus teams are too buried now - this is the piece of info that a) is actually tracked by the NCAA over time and b) gives an idea of who the main All-American players were for a given year then goes to a list of who made the specific teams. To me, showing information from the overview to the specific makes sense as opposed to being confusing.  I understand that I may be in the minority so I can defer to the consensus.  I do think that 55 references is WAY overboard.  Every player doesn't need to have their player page linked from this article and the info from these pages isn't actually used in the article.  If readers want to know more about individual players they should go to the individual Wikipedia pages to read it.  Just my 2 cents.  Rikster2 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree with Rikster2 in that the consensus team should be much more visible (in other words, higher up in the article) because those are the players who received the most votes and recognition for being All-Americans. The individualized nominations are of secondary importance. When I go to an All-American page for men's basketball, I want to know the generally agreed upon (consensus) team, not the individuals. Sure, include them, but don't make them the focus – that misses the main point of interest. I would argue the same thing for any other college sport (baseball, football, soccer etc.), so this is not merely a basketball prejudice. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see where both of you are coming from and have asked that the person who suggested moving consensus down comment. I will await consensus before making further changes to this matter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind having the consensus list be the first list, I just thought the lead should start off with the basics and not start of explaining the consensus list first. So maybe just moving the consensus section to be the first section would solve everyone's issues. Thoughts? Remember (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. Have the consensus team later in the lead but be the first list to appear seems logical.  Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok that's better. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I still think there are too many unnecessary refereces.  Any other thoughts on this?  Rikster2 (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Jrcla2 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – Meets FL standards.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Should I add a column for consensus AA points in the sortable table?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Review
 * "The 2010 College Basketball All-American team includes All-American selections from the Associated Press (AP), the United States Basketball Writers Association (USBWA), the Sporting News (TSN), and the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC)." -- why are you bolding "2010 College Basketball All-American team" ? If its not the title to the article?
 * Somehow the words got changed. I have adjusted the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the acronym is used in the title, you need to add the "(NCAA)" after the spelled out version of it in the lead.
 * done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like how in your other list you explained to the reader what the numbers under each column in the "sortable" table as to what they meant.
 * Is that better?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect.-- T ru  c o   503 17:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of "sortable", why not "By player"?
 * Sounds good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess that a table/section for AP Honorable mention might be tedious non notable work right?
 * Sort of.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is reference #2 ? What is it directed to/from?
 * Sorry. There were two typos.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway you can incorporate the players somehow into the lead? Like who the main selections were?-- T ru  c o   503 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. and I added a column to the table to back this up. It is not sorting exactly correctly though and I need some advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Try adding sort to each entry. So in this way the table can sort according to how you want it to sort. You can have it in this order 1 and then you can have 2, 3 , and finally – -- T ru  c o   503 17:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are all fixed now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support -- All issues resolved; meets WP:WIAFL.-- T ru  c o  503 02:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.