Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of NHL game sevens/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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC).

List of NHL game sevens

 * Nominator(s): –Piranha249 15:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria necessary for such a nomination, including comprehensiveness, prose, structure, and style. –Piranha249 15:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Kaiser matias
Not an overall review of the article, but I want to mention that Note A is not fully correct. While the 2-2-1-1-1 schedule is used now, it has not always been the case. For example, 1994 the Western Conference some series used the 2-3-2 format, including one on this list (1994 Maple Leafs-Sharks). Thus I would suggest re-wording the note. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * The first two paragraphs in the lead need sources since they are discussing information not included in the table.
 * Images need alt text.
 * I would suggest using a different format for footnotes, such as Template:Efn. This would allow the footnotes to pop up by hovering over the note, similar to references, instead of forcing the user to click the link to another section.
 * Use Template:See also for link to List of NHL overtime game sevens (though I don't think that list is even necessary... an AfD may be in order for that list since all of the information it covers is in this list).
 * Edit: After further consideration and review of that list, I decided to change it to a redirect to this list per WP:CFORK and WP:BOLD. This means the "See also" link should be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The green boxes and ^ symbols are not needed to denote game seven in the Stanley Cup Finals. Writing "Finals" in column 2 already conveys the same information without cluttering the table with more symbols.
 * Don't use small font for Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum Arena – just make the column wider. (Generally, smaller fonts should be avoided for accessibility reasons.)
 * The wikilinks in column 2 seem inconsistent. I see that you've avoided duplicate wikilinks for the same playoffs, but I think it would be better to have the links in every row and to distinguish the links by linking to specific sections. So, for example, the 2019 first round could link to 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs instead of just 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs and the 2019 second round could link to 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs.
 * The ∞ symbol and notes b/c are redundant. If the game is at a neutral site, obviously the winner was the designated home/road team when they won instead of actually being at home/on the road.
 * Use Template:Abbr to show that "Ref." in the last column means "References".
 * , I've done several of your suggestions, such as using Template:Efn and Template:Abbr. But I did run into issues with others:
 * The Green boxes were originally used in the NBA Game sevens article, also a featured list. Should that be in question, too?
 * What's the perfect width for Venue column?
 * How else is people supposed to know who was the designated home/road team in a neutral site game?
 * I'll look for sources wherever possible for the article lead. Now that the NFL season is over as of Sunday, this list will be one of my top priorities. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To explain some of my points:
 * While the NBA list uses the boxes, I'm not a huge fan of it. Why say something twice when we can say it once? In my opinion, the additional green boxes and ^ notes get in the way and disrupt readability without adding anything new – the round is already noted in the second column – so we should remove them. Also, the NBA list was approved over 10 years ago, so I don't think it fully represents current FL standards.
 * I don't know what the "perfect width" is – there's no right or wrong answer as long as the table still fits comfortably on the page.
 * If a game is marked with the ∞ symbol, then a red row would indicate the winner was the designated road team and a white row would indicate the winner was the designated home team. Alternatively, if a winning team is marked with note b or c as the designated home/road team, the game must have been played at a neutral site. Either way, one of the two symbols can be removed – the latter probably does a better job. Again, why say something twice?
 * –RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've already started to remove the green boxes at your suggestion, and I still have 5 (6?) left to remove. I also removed the notes regarding last year's playoffs (for consistency purposes, I used red rows). I still have to resolve the width of the venue column, but that's about it. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 00:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * –RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've already started to remove the green boxes at your suggestion, and I still have 5 (6?) left to remove. I also removed the notes regarding last year's playoffs (for consistency purposes, I used red rows). I still have to resolve the width of the venue column, but that's about it. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 00:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I endorse all of the above and add.....
 * Comments
 * "Since its opening in 1968, eight game sevens have been played at the Madison Square Garden." - being British, I am no expert, but isn't it just called "Madison Square Garden" rather than "the Madison Square Garden"?
 * Shouldn't the latest name of the Winnipeg Jets (I) / Phoenix Coyotes be shown? Or are you only showing names under which the franchise played a game 7?
 * Think that's all that hasn't already been mentioned....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've updated the MSG caption, and will do the same for the Coyotes. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Further comments
 * As per RT123's comments, paras 1 and 2 of the lead still need sourcing
 * I also agree that the green box and symbol aren't needed given that "Finals" is noted in column 2
 * Small text is still present - it should just be normal text
 * I also agree that if the infinity symbol is used to denote a neutral site game then notes b and c aren't needed. Or else get rid of the symbol and just keep the notes, in which case remove the full stops from the notes, as they are not complete sentences....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Is there a way to retract this featured list nomination, at least until I get all those issues resolved? I plan on renominating it when that happens. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 17:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if you really want to withdraw, you just have to state that here and one of the directors will close the nom. But TBH the outstanding issues aren't major, they should be resolvable within the timeframe of this FLC..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, I won't withdraw after all. But I'll have to find sources for those paragraphs sooner or otherwise ask for help. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 21:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, at a quick glance I would say this covers basically the whole of para 2...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Formatting
 * Consistent all around, retrieval dates, publisher/website


 * Reliability
 * Looks good, ref 1 is an NHL website, the rest are statistical info from the same site so no issue(s) here.


 * Verifiability
 * Checked 2, 14, 38, 66 all good
 * 170 appears to be the wrong reference
 * ref 173 is broken and not archived
 * Paragraph one, as others have said above, still needs a reference(s). Aza24 (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS
 * No issues with File:Madison Square Garden, February 2013.jpg
 * I'll assume good faith that File:Detroit December 2015 59 (Joe Louis Arena).jpg is in fact the uploader's own work since no evidence to the contrary can be found
 * It doesn't sound right to say "game seven is the only one in a best-of-seven series that is not guaranteed more than one game in advance" when one team could theoretically win 4 consecutive games in a series before even a fifth is played
 * "The only active NHL franchise that has never played in a game seven is the Columbus Blue Jackets" seems like it would be better for the Jackets' article. Let's focus more here on who did reach a seventh game within a series.
 * Starting four sentences in a row with "the" feels repetitive (see the third paragraph).
 * Not sure "NHL Records" should be italicized. Either way, remove the italics for "hockey-reference.com" (which should read "Hockey Reference").
 * Too much use of Hockey Reference. That doesn't mean it's a bad publication, just that you should implement some other sources for the sake of diversity. Literally the only citation (as of this revision) which doesn't come from that website is the first one, namely NHL Records.

Mainly due to the excessive reliance on one publication, I oppose the nomination for now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think the lead needs some more citations, which would likely come from other sources, but there is nothing wrong with the large reliance on a single source for citations in an FL. See, for instance, the recently promoted FLs List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1953 (49/57 sources from Billboard) or List of international goals scored by Manon Melis (49/54 sources from the Royal Dutch Football Association). As long as it's reliable, there's nothing wrong with it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Those cases aren't as reliant on a certain publication. My issue is that there's only a singular citation from anywhere else. Using one or two different sources doesn't feel like enough. I personally recommend using five different sources at minimum. More diversity within references helps show that more than one organization was interested in covering a subject. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): the table is missing column and rowscopes, and a caption.
 * Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ `
 * Each column header should be marked with `scope="col"`, e.g. instead of `! Year !! ...` it should be `! scope="col" | Year` with each header on its own line.
 * For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `| (1) || ...` it should be `!scope="row"|  (1)`, with the rest of the row on its own line. If the way this changes the formatting of that column bothers you, you can add the `plainrowheaders` class to the top of the table at `{| class="wikitable"`
 * -- Pres N  14:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * courtesy ping for, there seem to be quite a few issues here that have now piled up a bit. Aza24 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm aware of the issues, and will start to make changes to accommodate them. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 00:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This list has been here for over 3 months without any support, and an oppose has sat for a month without being addressed. Closing as a stalled nomination; feel free to re-nominate whenever the issues are addressed. -- Pres N  19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


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