Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/DHL Delivery Man Award/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 17:31, 29 October 2009 [1].

DHL Delivery Man Award edit

Nominator(s): Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

We are working on creating a featured topic of baseball awards, and so I have gotten this up to FL status, I think. Please let me know if there's anything I should change or if it's good as is. Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5
Comments from KV5
  • Lead needs expanding. I can help later this evening. A couple of minor formatting issues there with the bold that I will look at.
  • Great, that would be helpful. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fractions should use the {{frac}} template instead of straight ASCII characters.
  • Done That template is new to me --Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statistics should be linked at each occurrence (each row of a table should be able to stand on its own), especially since these are sortable tables.
  • Remove Rolaids award and List of MLB awards from "See also" since they duplicate the navbox.
  • Since MLB.com used to belong to a different company, I would change the work "MLB.com" to the publisher "Major League Baseball". You don't need both, and Major League Baseball leaves no ambiguity.
  • Have sorted those a bit; I think we got our wires crossed. Publishers are now Major League Baseball. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just those few things for now. Admirable job, Muboshgu! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir! --Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment from KV5

There are, I believe, too many images. On my monitor res at home and at work (one standard 1024x768 and the other widescreen 1280x800), the images run over into the reference section and compress them so they are hard to read. Ideally, the images should end before that section begins. The general standard on other MLB awards lists is to have one lead image, a key image if there's room, and three images within the list, or within each league's list, if they are separated. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done I had wondered if there were too many images. There had been one for each year when years were a subsection, but combining them all did make them run over into the references. That's been taken care of. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt text needs substantial work. Currently it is little more than a repeat of the caption. Ideally, the alt text should describe the photograph in the same manner that you would to someone unable to see it. See this guideline for more information. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that better? I don't know how else to describe the pictures. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really should be a visual description of the picture. For example, telling someone that there is a picture of Trevor Hoffman pitching doesn't help a visually impaired person who doesn't know what Trevor Hoffman looks like. You really don't even need to mention the person's name, because the caption does that. A visually impaired person, using a screen reader, needs a description of the subject of the image proper. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So would "a man in a windup", the only way I can describe these pictures, be understood and therefore acceptable as alt text? --Muboshgu (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not descriptive enough. I will see if I can help out later today. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: alt text should be completed now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "for his 41-save perfect season for the Philadelphia Phillies in 2008." Could "perfect season" be clarified for the non-baseball fan readers? It wasn't like Lidge didn't allow a baserunner for the whole year, after all.
  • References 29, 31 and 33 need publishers.
  • Make the Major League Baseball publishers consistent. Right now, I see Major League Baseball, MLB.com, and the odd Major League Baseball (Major League Baseball) [this one actually comes from the Yankees' web site]. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Major League Baseball is still their publisher, when they appear on MLB.com. That's always safer because MLB.com used to be owned by another company. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold
  • Are the two award titles really "DHL presents..."? Not just the "DHL Delivery Man of the Year/Month Award"?
  • Believe it or not, they are; see the press releases that are used as references. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the tables be set to a unified size?
  • I think its appearance in the navbox is likely enough. The only other place for it would be in the "See also" section, which is nullified by the navbox. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the charitable donation prize be mentioned?

Support I made a few tweaks. One comment: be consistent in formatting the MLB refs; some have MLB.com as the publisher while others have Major League Baseball. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • They are the award titles, though. Should they be italic? They need to be emphasized somehow. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to MLB says it's "the highest level of play" - how can this "entity" present an award per your opening sentence?
  • I'm not clear on what you mean here. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would, more rapidly, introduce the concept of the monthly and annual prizes.
  • "is voted on by " people normally vote for things don't they?
  • "The panel has included Darryl Hamilton and Mike Bauman.." panel has since included?
  • It may be tough to find the full makeup of the panel and all the permutations of said panel, but I'll try to find it. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the award more than any other" more times?
  • Where's that? Is that the thing I just removed? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "perfect season (41 saves in 41 opportunities)" - unclear what this means to a non-expert.
  • I tried clarifying it before, so now I'll just take it out. It was added by a Phillies fan anyway :P --Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You then link save the following sentence.
  • Not clear why the stats aren't in columns of their own, i.e. saves, ERA, strikeouts etc so we can sort them accordingly to see who really is the best.
  • Hmm hadn't thought about that for some reason... That would be much better. I'll get on that tomorrow. --Muboshgu

(talk) 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I started now actually. Question: any other stats I should add? I think it'd be best to go with walks and hits for monthly winners, instead of WHIP for annual winners, because WHIP seems less meaningful in the smaller sample size. The articles and press releases for monthly winners (where I got the stats) never mentioned WHIP. Thoughts on that? --Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Don't think you should have individual tables for years, that should be incorporated in one big table.
  • Should they be? Hmm. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the usefulness of the list would be improved if we could compare, say 2007 winners with 2008 winners against their various attributes. What do you think?
    • I like it in theory, but if done improperly, it will mess with the sort function. Let me see if I can work around that somehow. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done --Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Columns with fractions in don't sort correctly.
  • What do blank cells mean?
  • They just haven't been filled in yet. I'll finish them this weekend.
    • Ok, makes sense!

--Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Innings pitched column not sorting properly. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • We're aware of this. I asked a question as to why this is happening on the talk page of Template:Frac. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there's been no response... I was afraid of this, but I'm going to have to use Template:Sort in addition to the Frac template. That's gonna take some time, and time I don't have very much of at the moment. This FLC is still active. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to help out this evening if I can, Muboshgu. I've got a good amount of experience with the sorting template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or now. Sorting is... well, sorted. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot to watchlist this. My bad... Hope some user that know the codes well can fix it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant fixing the template. If the template is also fixed, then :D. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No comments for four days... Are we good here? --Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To my eye, everything has been completed. Probably just waiting on the next bot run for a promotion at this point. I'm sure TRM will revisit at some point for a once-over, and we should be good to go. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/DHL_Delivery_Man_Award/archive1&oldid=1207832366"