Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of family relations in the National Hockey League/archive1

List of family relations in the National Hockey League
Self-nom. I overhauled this page, added citations & pictures, and a History section. I think the page is incredibly well-cited (perhaps TOO well-cited, as it's quite long and huge as it relates to file size). Overall, I'm proud of the work I did on this page, and since it went through a peer review with almost no comments (aside from automated bot comments), I think it's ready for FL status.
 * Support, nominator. Anthony Hit me up... 14:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Object for the following reasons:
 * The pictures aren't placed well. On my monitor (1024x768) the pictures are grouped together before each section and bump the table down making HUGE white space.  It is possible, using "rowspan" to place pictures IN the table along the right edge in such a way that this doesn't happen.  Please try to fix this for readability.
 * Fixed the pictures by changing the format of the table; now it will work regardless of resolution.
 * The statistical rundown at the top seems incongruous with the incomplete list tag at the top. If the list is incomplete, how can you make definitive statements about the numbers of relations?  Also, the stats probably need a source from somewhere?  Did you research this on your own or did these stats come from somewhere?
 * The list is dynamic by nature; there are constantly new players coming into the NHL, and there will thus be a good chance some of them will be related to each other or previous players. As for the "history" section, is it original research to simply add up the numbers?  All relations are cited, so I just made a list of the numbers; there doesn't seem to be a specific source for the number of familial connections, but if we add up all the ones we have here, we can arrive at a fairly accurate number regardless.  I didn't think one was necessary since everything else is sourced.
 * Maybe it should make it clear by saying "this list shows XXXX brothers, etc. etc." rather than saying "there have been..." The former makes a definitive statement that is directly contradicted by the disclaimer at the top. The later lets you know that the analysis is done on the list in its current state RATHER than making some definitive statement the list itself says that it can't back up.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Added the qualifier "According to this list...". Valid concern that has (hopefully) been addressed. Anthony Hit me up... 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The list makes no distinctions between players, coaches, and executives. Shouldn't it?
 * Since 99% of the connections are players, non-players are only mentioned where pertinent (see: Keith Gretzky, the Hewitts, etc.)
 * Use of some images is problematic. The Henrik Sedin image page has a tag questioning its license. As such, it probably should be removed or resolved.  The Philip Suave (raw like sushi?  Sorry, couldn't help myself) image page does not list an author, so the "I grant permission.." licensing tag doesn't have any reference as to WHO is granting permission.
 * Replaced with free license John Grahame picture.
 * Red-linked players need stubs if they ARE notable, and should be un-linked if they were NOT notable. If it is likely that reliable sources exist to write an encyclopedia article about a player, go ahead and start a stub.  If there are likely NO sources in existence to base an article on, then the player shouldn't be linked.  A mere list of a players stats is NOT sufficient to base an article on, by the way.
 * It's going to happen that not EVERY single player who ever played in the NHL is going to have an article right away; I'll try to create some pages for as many of them as I can, along with the help of WikiProject:Ice Hockey. Over time, this will hopefully be fixed; however, I hope you will reconsider your objection on this point.
 * Actually, my point was that EVERY single player who has ever played in the NHL will never get an article. Many will not, simply because source material DOES NOT EXIST for them.  Redlinking to a potential article which by rights should never exist seems pointless.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  02:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To respond to your post, source material does in fact exist for these players; that's how we know they played in the NHL and had relatives who did as well. Otherwise, we'd be making stuff up.  All players who are on this page will get articles (I just created two stubs in about 20 minutes); it's just not going to happen within the time span of this article's candidacy.  All I'm asking is to look past the number of redlinks and look at potential other problems with the page.  I don't want to get into a heated argument about this, I understand your point and ask that you understand mine, that's all.  You've made some very helpful suggestions to this FLC, and aside from this one, I think I've addressed them all where appropriate (and possible).  With the help of Wikiproject Ice Hockey, this will get done eventually, I promise. Anthony Hit me up... 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's about it. Fix these problems and I can change my vote.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  02:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - I've flat-out addressed three of the concerns so far. As to the other two, I don't believe the "History" section falls under WP:OR (and it shouldn't).  In addition, most of the players are bluelinked, with only a small minority being redlinked, and as I stated above, I will try to create at least stubs for as many as I can given my time restrictions (two jobs, among others).  I hope you will change your vote after my response. Anthony Hit me up... 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

protocol. I have undone the striking. Anthony Hit me up... 00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Section headers should be sentence case. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Anthony Hit me up... 22:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't strike anyone's comments but your own. I always check back to see if the suggestions I made were addressed. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I had seen it done on other FAC/FLC pages and was unaware of the
 * Thanks, I struck it. It's the concept of the thing; see the top of this page. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 22:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The red links do not bother me at all - there are editors working to create articles for all NHL players, so this will take time. I do not believe that the red links detract from the quality of this article, and there is nothing in WP:FLC that suggests this is a showstopper.  The history section bugs me though.  Aside from the already mentioned problem of giving difinitive numbers in an article stated to be dynamic, it reads as a trivia section.  Given most of the little facts are already incorporated in the chart, is this history section even necessary? Resolute 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - I included the History section because I thought perhaps a summation of all of the relations was notable enough to warrant its own subsection. If it will preclude the list from reaching featured status, then it should be removed (namely, if more people object).  I'm an inclusionist by nature, though, maybe that's why I had it in there.  Anthony Hit me up... 01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Looks cleaner without the history section. Very, very well done list. Resolute 23:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, Really, Minor Oppose Very well written, and very well sourced article. However I really think that the history section is unnecessary. I think that it should be turned into prose, and form part of the lead. ..... Todd #661 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Support ..... Todd #661  00:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - I have removed the History section and moved the information into the lead. It was apparent that it would not pass FLC with the section intact, so I did what everyone wanted and got rid of it.  Hopefully this will eliminate further concern over this point, and I hope you can all change your oppose to support now. Anthony Hit me up... 14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I really think that twins should be seperated from siblings since they are so unique. --Krm500 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Very clean, thorough and well-referenced list. Sportskido8 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Struck through my prior vote. All fixes that this list needed have been made.  Good job! --Jayron32| talk | contribs  18:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, looks like the majority of outstanding issues have been addressed. Quite a unique compilation here. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 22:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)