Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sportsperson of the Year (Czechoslovakia)/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 promoted by The Rambling Man 17:57, 23 November 2009.

Sportsperson of the Year (Czechoslovakia)

 * Nominator(s): Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this complete list of all Czechoslovak Sportsperson of the Year awardees for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Thanks for all comments in advance. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment
 * Image needs alt text; see WP:ALT
 * Done.
 * Not good enough. For alt texts, you have to describe what the image looks like. WP:ALT has many examples.— Chris! c / t 06:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed it, hope it is better. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Color need to be accompanied with symbol; see recently promoted featured lists for example
 * OK, I have added the symbols to the individual awards. I think they are not necessary to add to the team awards, because there is written, whether the team is men's or women's. In fact, the colours are not necessary at the team awards either, but I kept them, because it looks better when the two tables have the same graphical layout. Do you agree with this solution?
 * This should be consistent. But if the color isn't necessary, then it should be taken out.— Chris! c / t 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The colour is not really necessary, but it helps. As I have said above, it looks better, if the layout of the two tables is consistent. The lead also summarizes the numbers of men's and women's teams, the colours help the readers to check it in the table quicker.
 * Unless you do insist on in, I would really prefer not to write the symbols into the teams section, which would indicate e.g. that "Women's national tennis team" were women. I think this is quite redundant and unlike the colours it does not make the search quicker. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, I can see three possible solutions for the teams section: a) leave the colours and not to add symbols, for the above stated reasons b) leave the colours and add also symbols c) not to use any of them in this section, neither colours nor symbols. I personally would prefer the a) possibility, but what do you think? Thanks. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * C seems to be the best option.— Chris! c / t 06:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, can you just say some arguments, why you do not consider the two reasons I gave for keeping the colour important? I still think it would help and would not make any harm. I would also like to ask other reviewers to express their opinion here. If more people agree with leaving the colours in this section out, I will have no problems to do so. Thanks. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is against FL standard to have only the color but have no symbol. This has to do with the accessibility guideline of the site. Please look at other recently promoted FLs with color, all of them have symbols. But if the color is unnecessary, like you said, then it can be taken out.— Chris! c / t 21:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While I was looking for the sources to fulfill the demands written below, I kept considering this issue. Unfortunately, nobody else has expressed their opinion here, but I still think that the colour should stay there. Usually there is a symbol which says e.g. what sex each sportsmen is, and the symbol is accompanied with the colour. The colour is usually not necessary, if there is the symbol, but it helps, because it makes the orientation quicker. Here it is practically the same, the only difference is that instead of the symbols it is directly written that the team is Men's or Women's. So I would really prefer to leave it this way. However, I do not consider it to be a crucial thing, so if these arguments have not convinced you, I will change it. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your preference to use only color and agree that this is a trivial issue, but having color with symbol is still a standard that all FLs should adhere to. This exists to accommodate the color blinds, who cannot distinguish colors. Symbols will help indicate the differences. I am sorry about this and I don't know what else to say. Feel free to seek a second opinion though. Thanks.— Chris! c / t 18:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem, I will add the symbols. Are you satisfied with the sources? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

— Chris! c / t 18:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is http://sports123.com/ a reliable source?
 * Yes, it is a reliable and respected source, probably the most complete international sports results archive available. 1,480 Wikipedia articles use it. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources are reliable if they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Just because 1000+ articles use it, doesn't automatically make it reliable.— Chris! c / t 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is a reliable and respected source. The number of wiki pages that use it was just an extra information, which I considered interesting. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean by "reliable and respected"? According to whom is it a high quality source? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was speaking from my experience, I have used it for years and never met a mistake there. I am not sure whether there is a source directly stating that Sports123 is particularly reliable, but there is also no source saying the opposite. However, I understand if you do not consider it enough and I will try to add some sources, so that there are two independent ones for every achievement. Is this OK? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just use the official source will work. For example, the IOC for the Olympics.— Chris! c / t 06:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try to provide official sources, but in the case of some world championships of some minor sports this may not be possibile to fulfil, because their organizations do not keep any public record of historical results. So I was thinking about using some books.Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Books will work.— Chris! c / t 21:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed the sources, now they should all be OK. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - thanks for your patience, the list looks good. — Chris! c / t 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and ideas. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have checked it and found one dab link, which I have fixed. May I ask, what toolbox you mean? Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are still two remaining, which you can see here. The toolbox is at the top right corner of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you. Fixed. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Looks like a nice list. I can only assume the non-English sources are reliable, since it's hard for us English speakers to check the ones in Czeck or Slovak.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 23:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the sources: The online reference, which is in Czech, is an official web page of the Club of Sports Journalists of the Czech Republic (Klub sportovních novinářů ČR), which is a successor organization of the Club of Czechoslovak Sports Journalists, which awarded the trophy. The Slovak source is SME, one of the most widely read serious newspaper in Slovakia. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment  Looks good. Only one issue that I could see—the "team" column in the team doesn't sort properly (you probably should have it sort alphabetically by sort by men, and then by women). When this is resolved I will support. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed it. Did you mean it this way? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed you did some copyediting in the text. Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, and yes, the sorting fix was good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. I didn't evaluate the foreign-lanugage sources for reliability, but I'll assume good faith based on Jan's explanation above. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. There were some issues with the article lacking non-breaking spaces, but due to the longevity of this FLC, I took the liberty of fixing those myself so I could support.—NMajdan &bull;talk 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.