Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/King Clancy Memorial Trophy

King Clancy Memorial Trophy
Modeled upon the Hart Memorial Trophy, a reasonably recent FL, and Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy, a current FLC due to close soon. It is a bit different, as the trophy is relatively recent, and as such has no defined history section, but a paragraph in the lead. All concerns will be addressed.  Maxim (talk)  22:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Is there a list coming of Hockey award lists?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's NHL awards. It's gonna be a featured topic, so I apologize for bringing a tenth such list here.  Maxim (talk)  00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Can't anything be done about the whitespace on the page. ludahai 魯大海 13:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's the only free image I could find :(. I can't use fair-use. It sucks, I raised a similar comment on a similar FLC myself, but that what it is. Sorry again.  Maxim (talk)  19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What does that image have to do with the whitespace?-- Crzycheetah 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The whitespace usually has images in it, and that's how the table's structured. I'm not sure how bad it is in monobook, but it's stands in simple.  Maxim (talk)  01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The whitespace is created by the infobox, I think. You really need the history section, it will make this article more comprehensive and get rid of the whitespace. You need more background info on this trophy than what you have in the lead.-- Crzycheetah 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's doesn't have much history to it, as it was established about 20 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Do something about the white space and I will reconsider.  ludahai 魯大海 11:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the history a bit, is it all right now?  Maxim (talk)  12:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is better, but there is still some whitespace between the header and the table. ludahai 魯大海 00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific with what you want me to do? Sorry for the delay, I was on WikiBreak.  Maxim (talk)  20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've added

underneath the history section. It certainly does not rid the article of all white space, but it does prevent the infobox from overlapping onto the list heading. As for the presence of the white space, I don't think there is any way to remove it all; IMO, it is not really reasonable to call for an expansion of the "History" section when no relevant information can be found to add to it. Rai - me 00:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, now for my review. I had only a few minor concerns:
 * Lead - This should be expanded. Not up to par with other trophy list.
 * For Dave Poulin, is the "Spent countless hours" really necessary? This should probably be reworded.
 * Is there a reason why some of the more notable charities and hospitals are not wikilinked?
 * I think the References and Notes should be combined with separate "General" and "Specific" sections, as with other trophy lists.
 * Other than these concerns, the lists looks pretty good. Rai - me  00:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I should be able to do the changes, I'm just lagging behind here a little bit, sorry. :(  Maxim (talk)  12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And now I think I'm ✅.  Maxim (talk)  12:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be so nit-picky, but can the lead be expanded any more? A 2 sentence lead is still very short. For example, how are players selected? It it just a coincidence that no player has won it more than once, or is this a general rule? Perhaps mention the exact number of players who have won it over X amount of years since it origin in Z year (similar to the Hart Trophy article). Some of this information may also be included in the history section to help expand it. Rai - me  14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What about now?  Maxim (talk)  15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - And another great job, Maxim. Lead now seems up to par with other trophy lists. I still am curious about one tidbit of information - can no player ever win the award more than once, or has this just never happened? If this information can be found, it would be good to include in the lead and history sections. But this is a great list. Rai - me  15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 *  Strong Oppose  Short lead. Short History. You listed nhl.com as a reference, but you're citing legendsofhockey.net instead. Add legendsofhockey.net to your general references and format that section using something similar to cite web. In the awarded to the part of the infobox you basically rewrote the lead, I'd suggest you to reword it. I am very concerned how short this is, though.-- Crzycheetah 02:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Crzycheetah, I can't do much about the length, it only has a twenty year history.  I can expand the lead, but the history section already has gone through a creation-expansion through this FLC. About legendsofhockey.net, I'm not sure what you want me to try to do. NHL.com is a general reference, as it describes the trophy, while each legendsofhockey.net footnote has a short bio, more focusing on why the player in question won the trophy. It's a very similar, if not identical, system of citations used for the Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy.   Maxim (talk)  12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maxim on these points. I did a Google search of the trophy, and many sources, even the NHL sources, wnet into far less detail about the trophy than this article's history section does. I really don't see how the history can be expanded, if no more info can be found. The awarded to the information in the infobox follows the same format as other Trophy FLs; re-writing the information in the lead seems to be a standard for many of these lists, so I don't see why this particular one should be reworded. I do agree with Crzycheetah's point about the lead, however; it is a little too short. Rai - me  14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you could use some trivial info in the history section. I found something interesting about the great Wayne Gretzky and this trophy: read here.-- Crzycheetah 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally do not think that the voting statistics of one particlular year are relevant enough to be placed in the history section. That has more to do with the individual players, not the overall history of the trophy. Rai - me  01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think trivia should be thrown into the article to get it to FL status. A featured article should contain only important, comprensive information and adding trivia doesn't really cut it. I would love to see a long history section, but we can only add what the sources allow. -- Scorpion0422 01:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was about the very first year of the award and the G.O.A.T in hockey, that's why I made this suggestion. To tell you the truth, 90% of the content in the history sections of all of these awards(Hart Memorial Trophy, Lester B. Pearson Award etc) are trivial, but they still get featured.-- Crzycheetah 02:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the lead reasonably, but I think I might've doubled the size of the lead, take a look.  Maxim (talk)  13:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support The history section doesn't matter that much too me, the table is well sourced and well formatted, so I support. -- Scorpion0422 01:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Whitespace is gone, lead and history are extended. -- Crzycheetah 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per Scorpion, and per the consistent formatting with the other NHL trophy FL's. It should be noted, however, that I am a member of the Featured Topic drive that this article is a part of. Resolute 22:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)