Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Golden Spikes Award/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 The Rambling Man 16:09, 30 September 2012.

Golden Spikes Award

 * Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past month and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Zepppep (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What are the chances of getting a photo of the award into the article? It's a pretty cool looking award. Zepppep (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried searching Flickr for a free image, but I wasn't able to find any. Unfortunately, all the pics of the award I have found so far are non-free. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Uploaded a fair-use logo of the Golden Spikes Award. I think that should suffice. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Minor point, but if reference 3 covers each of the first two sentences, it doesn't need to be used for each sentence. One cite at the end of the material covered is sufficient for verifiability.
 * Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Tim Lincecum photo caption needs a reference, since nothing else in the article covers the Cy Young Awards.
 * Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If ref 11 is acknowledged as "shady" by the nominator, why are we using it? If it's true that nothing else of higher quality exists to cite the fact it's used for, maybe it doesn't belong in this article for now. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I stated that it could be shady because it comes from not such a well-known website (as opposed to ESPN or MLB.com), due to the fact that it covers only the sports teams based around Phoenix. In my opinion, the source does have some credibility to it, as it was written by one of the website's 3 official editors. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was asked for further comments on my talk page. My further comment is that I don't think the source is reliable, and I think the fact is cites should be removed if a stronger citation doesn't exist. Obviously, others can challenge my opinion, and if they can produce evidence of reliability stronger than the site having editors, I want them to do so. Has information from the site been used in any mainstream publications? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 19:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu commented below on how the website's about page "does quell some concerns." I read up more on that page and found out that the website states that their "work has been featured, syndicated, and/or linked to by ESPN, Deadspin.com, USAToday.com, SI.com, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters."  Provided that what they stated is indeed true, I don't think the website should be considered unreliable, since all these reliable news sources utilize it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds a little better, but I'm still wary of the site. I'd feel better if Muboshgu struck out his concern about it. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu stated that he is "unsure" of whether to keep the Fanster source or replace it with the other source that is more vague. Which source do you think would be better? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that I'm inclined to go with, "when in doubt, throw it out". A FL should be beyond reproach, and if a source leaves us unsure, we're probably better off without it, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, so which source is the one that leaves us unsure? The Fanster.com one or the reliable yet vague encyclopedia. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Muboshgu is saying that both sources leave us unsure, and that the fact they support should be removed. You'd have to ask him to confirm that, though. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 19:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess so. I'd be inclined to leave it out entirely, and then I'd be fine giving full support. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Removed the sources and the fact. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment Looks good, one point is that the wording in the third sentence of paragraph three could be adjusted. Instead of, "Although the award can be given to any amateur player, it has always been given to a college baseball player" maybe a better option would be "Although it can be given to any amateur player, the award has always been given to a college baseball player." I bring this up because the prior two sentences both the contain "the award", therefore it might be advisable to move the term to later in the third sentence to make it less redundant. AutomaticStrikeout 18:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Very nice-looking list. AutomaticStrikeout 18:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support All concerns addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support  Harrias  talk 11:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but the use of italics to indicate something in the table may not be accessible for screen-reader users. I don't know if anyone else can provide any further guidance either way on this issue? That said, it is only a minor point, and I'm happy to support this article's promotion. Nice work.  Harrias  talk 11:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


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