Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Rugby League golden point games

List of National Rugby League golden point games
The page didn't take too much effort to create, but nevertheless is complete and highly detailed, and most importantly meets all of the featured list criteria. mdmanser 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The title needs to specify it's National Rugby League competition matches only. At the moment, it could be anything. Furthermore, wasn't golden point used in ARL/NRL finals before 2003?  Daniel →♦  11:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah another editor suggested that I change the title, and I think I will. The problem is, the NRL is the only notable rugby league competition (in fact, any sport) that uses the golden point system. There is a chance that minor leagues in Australia may use it, but I am unaware of the system being in placed. As for finals before 2003 - I really can't remember. I can't think of any game in which this happened for the last 10 years. I used to hear it was extra time as stated, but I wasn't the person who wrote the introduction to this page. I'll fix these things up in the next hour or two. mdmanser 11:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd suggest List of National Rugby League golden point games, because a) other codes do use golden point, and b) other rugby league comps may end up using it, so it's best to be specific. Maybe also mention the fac tthat, out of the x games which made it to golden point, y finished the 90 mins still tied. Just some thoughts :) Good job, anyways.  Daniel →♦  11:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved it myself :)  Daniel →♦  11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I support Daniel's move. I know at least that the State of Origin now use golden point. There was a match a few years back when NSW won by golden point. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 07:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 *  Neutral  for now. Here are my comments/questions:
 * Next time, avoid saying "this page didn't take too much effort to create"... you're meant to be exhausted by your efforts to bring a list to FL status, not be able to write one with little difficulty! But, more seriously, does the list meet the criteria of 1(a) "usefulness" in the criteria? It can't be 1(a)(1) (existing articles) or 1(a)(2) (timeline), so it'd have to be 1(a)(3): "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles".  I wonder whether about 30 NRL games in 5 years fits the bill for a "significant topic of study".  "Golden point" isn't even mentioned in National Rugby League.  But, as I'm the other side of the globe and know very little about this sport/league, you may be able to convince me.
 * Haha well I didn't simply intend to suggest that the page was too easy to make, but also give an indication that there could have been some room for improvement, as you've listed out. mdmanser 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Date and time" is given as a header, but no times are given - suggest changing to "date".
 * Suggestion fixed - "time" has been removed. mdmanser 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the list need to include referee and crowd size? I know the source has this information, but I'm not sure the list gains much by knowing it. It might be more interesting to include the scorer of the winning points than the referee, for example.  That column would also indicate at a glance the games that remained tied.
 * I'll take that into account - in fact I will get around to removing those two columns and putting in the winning scorer instead. mdmanser 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You need sources for the scorers, I think. You could also mention something about the scorers in the lead e.g. that Clinton Schifcofske has scored golden points in three games, which is the most any player etc... If you're looking for extra material for the lead, which wouldn't hurt, then who has won the most in golden point games? Who has lost the most?! BencherliteTalk 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider removing the 2003/2004/2005 etc dividers (which, in my view, aren't really needed in this small table) ; then consider making it a sortable date by (at least) team and date, so that the table can be played with more usefully. BencherliteTalk 17:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. mdmanser 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral per Bencher's date and time, referee, and crowd size comments. I disagree about the yearly separations. I add the first sentence should express the topic more clearly. State the obvious, people. Circeus 02:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything in the first sentence has been taken into account. As for the small font - that was to allow each entry to take up just one line in a standard 1024x768 window. At the moment it's not going to happen, but once I get the new column instead of the current two then the problem should be fixed. Thanks for your suggestions. mdmanser 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to all - I've added and filled in the new "golden point(s)" scorer column upon your suggestions and have removed the redundant (yet accessible via link) referee and crowd columns. Two questions - should I reference the instances where the scorer had to be looked up on a separate news article? Secondly, are the colours in the table ok to be used or are they better removed? I initially had them introduced as an alternative to logos, but I'm beginning to see that they're not particularly needed apart from a small navigational point of view. Thoughts? Also, I will update the introduction - I'll let you know on your talk pages when it is done. Cheers, mdmanser 09:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Q1 - yes (cite your sources). Q2 - I don't mind the colours.  I've got this page and that page watch-listed, so no need to tell me when there are changes.  BencherliteTalk 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I fixed the intro (I'm itching to add "since their introduction in...", but no article states when they were introduced!). The tables looks much better without those columns. I didn't mind the headers (I find such separation to be a welcome break in tables.), but the table does fine enough without too. Circeus 21:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My thinking was that the headers would obstruct sorting; if the list isn't to be made sortable, then I'm not opposed to there being such breaks. BencherliteTalk 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added sources where necessary (games won by field goals have not been sourced, but can be easily looked up in the single reference by clicking the correpsonding date). I also added a paragraph onto the end of the introduction with a few statistics, although it may be worth double checking the prose. At this stage, do you two think a separate results table should be included as well - e.g. games by team? As for the sortable table - I'm not sure how that works. Apart from that, I don't think I have any further amendments to make. Thanks. mdmanser 10:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd still prefer references for all the scorers; it wouldn't be obvious to a newcomer to the page that the identity of the scorer was referenced by the general reference when other scorers have references. I've made it sortable (using sortname and dts2) and added in the missing scorer's name with a reference - you might be able to find a better one. I think the lead is better now.  I don't think a separate results table is needed.  If you source the rest of the scorers, I'll support.  BencherliteTalk 10:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Support I am definately not going to oppose an article that uses such good references - for every single entry, however there is all that text at the beginning that is referenceless - try to add some for those. ..... Todd #661 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (PS can you advise on my talk page when you have done this?)
 * Sorry for taking so long, but I've finally finished citing each of the 31 games in question. As for the introduction; I've added one source, but it is seeming very hard to find any others. I'll try and have a look around more but I can't guarantee if it will get any better than that. mdmanser 02:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. BencherliteTalk 18:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this now eligible for promotion with 3 additional supports? Or does it need 4 supports apart from the original automatic support from the nominator? mdmanser 08:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)