Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mark of the Year


 * 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 User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008.

Mark of the Year
previous FLC (20:26, 11 October 2008)

Comprehensive, well written, meets FL criteria; after two extensive peer-reviews and a failed FLC, this article is once more, ready to be a FL candidate. One of the main issues that other editors encountered with this article was that it was hard for those unfamiliar with Australian rules football to understand the jargon and football-related concepts. In light of this, I've re-written this article from the standpoint of someone who is encountering the topic for the first time. Once again, if there are any minor issues remaining, I'd be willing to work on them, until the article reaches FL status. -- Flewis (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice that there are no actual book sources, so i would expect sources do exist for the missing data, but require a trip to the library. Hence i would oppose at this time, at least until print sources have been checked. I don't see how it is possible for newspapers of the time not to have these results, so this fails to be comprehensive. (Also, is Youtube a reliable source for these stats? What's to stop someone faking an official looking video on there?).Yobmod (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Issue fixed - A reference, namely this one was found. -- Flewis (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Youtube is not being used as a source of information, it is only linked so as to present visual evidence. This issue has already been discussed in the previous FLC and Peer reviews. -- Flewis (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are the Youtube videos not copywrite breaches by Youtube, which should therefore not be used as links? or are the PD for some reason?Yobmod (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The usability of youtube videos has been discussed here. Copyright has been discussed here.-- Flewis (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The copywrite discusion did not show that these are not illegal copywrite violations. You wrote:"However I failed to find an exact copyright pertaining to synthesis of sport broadcasts". Until that is known for certain i'm sure this wouldn't fly with featured articles and shouldn't with featured lists.Yobmod (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the links to the youtube videos are detrimental to the article/block to FL, then I see no reason not to remove them. I personally believe that the reader will want to see the mark, not just read about it. Linking directly to the video, is simply a convenience. Wikipedia is not paper after all, and a video link certainly sets this article apart, presenting both a textual and visual encyclopedia experience. On the other hand, copyright is a very serious issue, and Youtube is directly responsible for any copyright videos appearing on the site. As a rule of thumb, copyrighted material is either promptly removed from the site, or displayed with advertising. If the video has not been removed, we can safely assume that it is presented in a legal fashion. The wikimedia foundation cannot be held liable for what appears on youtube, so we can safely assume that a harmless link will not incur any legal action. -- Flewis (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's not about what the reader wants, it's about breaking the law, and getting Wikipedia closed down. Anyone else noticed that the German courts have shut down wikipedia.de for something that should never have been in an article according to policy? I'm not a copywrite expert, so if an experienced user in this area can say we are not breaking the law, then that's fine. But at the moment, we have no indication at all. Official policy = If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. Yobmod (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As the videos are now gone, i look over some other parts, and it looks nearly there. Some (one?) of the colour-code symbols are missing,m and i agree with those below that the descriptions of the win need to be sourced to someone. I'll go for neutral, as there still seems a lot of comments from others that need atending.Yobmod (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is much improved over its first FL review, but there are 2 major issues and some minor ones:

I did some cleanup and some minor formatting changes. Please make sure none of my work introduced problems.
 * Several items in the list that are very important, like round and location, are missing. I've flagged SOME of these with HTML comments. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
 * Done -- Flewis (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments in the list which are not sourced may be perceived as WP:Original Research. If it's obvious from inspection of the video then it will probably be okay but if it's editorializing or even looks like it, or it contains facts not visible in a publicity photo, it should be sourced.  1975 is an example of one that must be sourced.  Ideally, they all would be. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
 * Mostly done - there are a few other un-sourced descriptions, but the sources for them shouldn't be hard to find. -- Flewis (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The normal wikipedia rules of "only link the first instance" aren't done but they may not apply. However, the principle author should adopt a convention of when to link the same word or name more than once and document it on the talk page.  If it makes sense to do so, this should be the wiki "first mention gets a link" rule.  Because of the nature of the tables, I'm okay with a link in the first instance in each table, plus the first use in the article if different.  I'm also okay with a link for every use in the tables, but try to avoid that if possible. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
 * To someone unfamiliar with Australian Rules football jargon, or to someone skimping through the article, an overlink when relevant to the context is helpful and necessary. Otherwise it may be best to WP:IAR? -- Flewis (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of single-quotes, double-quotes, italics, and bold needs to be standardized and documented on the talk page. The use of "fancy quotes" or "angled quotes" or "curley quotes" should be avoided. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
 * I don't understand. -- Flewis (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See this edit. "Fancy" quote characters like ‘ and ’ and “ and ” (note: these characters may LOOK the same as normal quotes but check the wiki-source to see the difference) should be avoided except when necessary as they look awkward on some older platforms.  Use ' and " instead.  Sometimes, italics or bold is better than putting a word in quotes, I just played with the text and decided which one felt right and most consistent with the rest of Wikipedia when I made that edit.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't seem find any instances of this type of formatting within the article. Could you please double check if the issue has been resolved? -- Flewis (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's been taken care of. But if and when new material is added by the editor who put them in in the first place, care should be taken not to introduce these again.  Some word- and text-processors turn quotes into curly-quotes automatically, this feature should be turned off when preparing articles for Wikipedia.
 * Is there a reason the links to videos are emphasized/bolded? Is there a reason it is in citation format rather than description inline format? davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
 * I wasn't entirely sure exactly how the video column had to be presented (a link to a MOS guideline regarding this issue would be great). Otherwise, the youtube videos were converted into citations for some reason here-- Flewis (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC) }}

Support I made quite a few copy-edits. I think the list is ready for FL status. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Support all of my concerns have been addressed. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment There are two red-links in the transcluded template at the bottom. If anyone here knows enough about the subjects, please create stubs for Dreamtime at the 'G and VFL/AFL Captains. Newly-minted FL articles look so much better when they don't have any redlinks.
 * Done - See here and here -- Flewis (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.