Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 1928 Winter Olympics medal winners/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 Dabomb87 22:44, 17 November 2009 [1].

List of 1928 Winter Olympics medal winners edit

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Similar to the 1924 list which was just promoted, but I've gone through to correct problems that cropped up in the previous nom. Geraldk (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks both for the reviews and support. Geraldk (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 01:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
  • How do you justify capitalizing the word Games?
I was asked to begin doing so by a reviewer in these lists during the previous nom. My understanding of the justification is that Games is short for Olympic Games, and as such should be capitalized in the same way that President, as in President of the United States, is capitalized. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as it is clear from the context what is meant, I can live with this explanation. Goodraise 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Athletes from 12 of the 25 participating NOCs won at least won medal" - What's this?
That would be a typo. It's fixed now. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A number of the medal winners during the games are memorable." - I don't understand.
I assume by this comment that you were suggesting removal of the sentence. It was intended to be a lead-in to the paragraph, but am not wedded to it, so it's gone. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest removal. I simply didn't understand. Giving a lead-in is fine, but this particular one confused me... What made the medal winners memorable? It also sounded like an unattributed opinion. Goodraise 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, actually, you're absolutely right, it is unattributed opinion. I think it reads OK without it, so let's leave it out. Geraldk (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Per-Erik Hedlund won the race by a 13 minutes margin after temperatures warmed by 25 degrees Celsius during the race." - For us who have no clue of skiing, what is special about this?
The snow melted. Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a bit confused. Didn't the rising temperatures affect every participant of the race? Goodraise 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're confused, but the source won't justify any further explanation. The source assumes that the reader will understand that a 13 minute margin is exceptional in any conditions, especially such adverse ones. Geraldk (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the source myself, how about: "Per-Erik Hedlund won the race, that took place during unusual weather conditions with temperatures rising from 0 to 25 degrees Celsius, by an exceptional margin of 13 minutes." Goodraise 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stole your suggestion with one minor change for grammar. It should be which rather than that, right? Or is my grammar off... Geraldk (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is wrong, which is just much more common in non-restrictive clauses. Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The competition was cancelled in the fifth heat because of thawing ice" - This is a complete sentence, so end it with a period. Also, what is "the fifth heat"?
Fixed the first part. Heat is used as a term for a qualifying round in a sports competition, and I would wikilink but there doesn't seem to be a wikipedia article on it. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps link to Wiktionary.—Chris!c/t 06:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that it's the tenth definition of the word. Any idea how to link there without just confusing the reader? Geraldk (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe create an article named Heat (sport), but I don't know if you are interested in that or not.—Chris!c/t 19:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think linking it to racing is adequate? My issue with creating an article is that it's simply an alternate definition of the word, and I don't think it meets the requirements to be a wikipedia article (rather than a wiktionary entry). I guess my question is, is it sufficiently obscure that it needs its own article or have different vocabulary used? Or, since the main point of that bit is that the event was cancelled due to melting ice, which is clear with or without a definition of heat, can it be left as is? Geraldk (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've simply removed the reference to which heat it was cancelled in. Geraldk (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General reference" and "Specific references" - Strike "references". It's the references section, what else could they possibly be?
Done. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is given as the title of the general reference seems to be a description of the page instead of its actual title.
I've altered the title, which is now technically accurate but not at all descriptive. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title given for reference 3 seems to be a translation of the document's actual title.
Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one entry in the see also section seems a bit out of place. I'd love to see the section replaced by a navigation box built around the 1928 Winter Olympics.
This one's a little more challenging. The Olympics Wikiproject has tended to stay away from bottom of page navboxes about specific Olympics, preferring instead something like the one here. So I could create a box like the 2008 one, or frankly drop the see also section completely since it really isn't necessary. Any input on that one? Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at the 1928 Winter Olympics article, then I see a topic that's perfectly suitable to have its own navigational box, even if it only included the articles that are linked from 1928 Winter Olympics using {{main}}. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want such a box. Goodraise 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm sorry you don't seem to understand, but I prefer to stick with the precedent of the wikiproject unless there is a discussion of such a change to that precedent beyond one person insisting on it in a review. Are you arguing in favor a sidebar navbox, or an end of page one? If the former, you'll have to explain what articles you think would be good to add, as the current format used by the wikiproject for the sidebar (like the one I linked to) would include only three articles, the main one, the medal table, and the medal winners list, and frankly a three-page navbox would muss up the article to little benefit, especially since the list already links to the main article. If instead you are arguing for an end of page navbox, I'm sorry, I don't believe that an FL reviewer should dictate the style used by wikiprojects. Geraldk (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to apologize. I'm nitpicking here. Comments at FLC aren't restricted to things that on their own would merrit an oppose or even to things pertaining to the FL criteria. If you find any request I or any other reviewer brings up to be unreasonable, then simply say so and do nothing. On an unrelated matter, wikiprojects don't own articles. What they tend to do or not to do is irrelevant unless they write it into a project space page and add a guideline tag to it. Actually, looking at the article now, I find I mistakenly remembered it to have several more {{main}} links. Anyway, I still find that better interconnectivity among the 1928 Winter Olympics articles, in whatever form, would be a nice thing to have. Goodraise 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I'll bring this up at the wikiproject. I think you could create a navbox for each Games that would include the individual sports articles for each Games (in addition to the basic stuff like medal winners and medal table), but that gets more complex for the more recent summer games, where you can have as many as two dozen sports and the navbox would consequently be huge. It might take a while to sort out with other participants there. Is that all right? Geraldk (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have created a sample navbox at Template:1928 Winter Olympics, added it to list. Am running it by wpolympics now. Geraldk (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will be back with more. Goodraise 19:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which was swept by Swedish athletes" - "Swept"? What does that mean in this context?
I've reworded, and split the sentence since it was getting to be too long. Geraldk (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image of Billy Fiske seems suboptimal, seeing as he was only one member of a team of five and since the picture was taken 12 years later.

Goodraise 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it's not optimal. However, I do think it still has some value as an illustration, as it is a portrait of a medal winner, one of the subjects of the list. There just aren't that many photos available of the people on the list. Geraldk (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if some of my more nitpicky comments during this review have caused you stress. That was not the intention. I also apologize for not revisiting sooner. If you look at my contributions, you'll find that I haven't been very active this past week. Goodraise 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my responses were a little rude. It wasn't being nitpicky that bother me, it was comments like '(insert typo here) what's this?' that I felt were a little snarky. I should have assumed good faith. Sorry. Geraldk (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, tone is something I have yet to master. (I'm not a native speaker of English.) Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They still have issues. I'll do it myself if I find the time. Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Goodraise 03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Notes and references" link in the TOC is broken. Also, having the middle column with less items than the outside ones looks weird.
Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Athletes from 12 of the 25 participating NOCs won at least one medal; 6 won at least one gold medal." - I don't like this construct. If I separate the sentences like this: "Athletes from 12 of the 25 participating NOCs won at least one medal. Athletes from 6 of the 25 participating NOCs won at least one gold medal." it becomes clear that the 6 refers to the number of NOCs, not athletes, which leaves the second half of the original sentence without a subject. Perhaps write it like this: "Athletes from 12 of the 25 participating NOCs won at least one medal; athletes from 6 won at least one gold medal."
Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four athletes won two medals each;" - Following this is only a listing, not a full sentence. Use a colon instead of the semicolon.
Fixed. Good catch. Geraldk (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both Grøttumsbråten and Thunberg had been multiple medal winners in the previous Olympic Games as well." - Unnecessary use of past perfect. "Both Grøttumsbråten and Thunberg were multiple medal winners in the previous Olympic Games as well." would be just fine.
Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only three other nations, Sweden, Finland, and Austria, had athletes win medals in more than one event." - In this sentence, the nation names link to their articles of the previous Games.
Holy crap, talk about poor editing of cut and paste. Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the statistics section, the nation names link to the general "at the Olympics" articles instead of the specific ones as they do in the rest of the article.

Goodraise 06:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more comments
  • The see also section is now superfluous, right?
  • The TOC seems to violate MOS:BOLD.

Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed both. What's the outstanding issue with the alt text? I'm still fairly new at it, so any additional input is helpful. Geraldk (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the risk of sounding snarky again, you may want to read WP:ALT, especially since, by nominating, you've implicitly claimed that you believe that the article is in line with that guideline. Goodraise 03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general reference could use some instructions on how to retrieve the actual data from that site.
I've switched the link to take you to the more user-friendly version of the dbase. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. However, this version of the database appears to allow direct links to result pages. For example this link could be used to reference the whole bobsleigh section without a need for the reader to query the database themselves. Using this method throughout the article would be a significant improvement. By the way, you didn't change the title of reference 4. Goodraise 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The olympic.org website is undergoing significant changes, and I did not link to individual dbase results for the simple reason that the pages may not last very long. Seeing as use of a general reference is accepted practice on FLC, and in the interest of meeting the stability criterion, I'd prefer not to change it. Are you saying that a general reference is unnacceptable? Geraldk (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying that. I'm only saying that direct links would significantly improve the usability of the list to users who care enough to check its claims against the sources. Anyway, I don't think that replacing dead references would make the list unstable in the sense of criterion 6. If I may ask, exactly how unstable is olympic.org? Goodraise 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a hard question to answer. They just revamped their entire website, and sometime in the next few weeks I'll have to go back through a bunch of Olympics FLs and fix a whole lot of dead links. The only part they didn't touch was this database, but I'm worried that it, too, will change soon, hence my concern about lots and lots of potentially dead links. I think you're right that it would make the article better to have individual refs, but, well, that's the conflict. If you think that verifiability outweighs (potential) instability, I'm happy to go through and add them. Geraldk (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I don't think that instability is an issue here at all. I'd be very surprised if criterion 6 was intended that way. The way I understand it, it's only about edit wars and ongoing content disputes. I can also understand your reluctance to make yourself more work than necessary, but that's simply part of getting that bronze star. After all, you don't have to do it, if you catch my drift. Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you're holding the promotion hostage to it, I do. Any suggestions for how to write the citations? Seems to me they would all look the same to the reader, the only difference being the url, which is not visible in the cite web template. Geraldk (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not holding anything hostage. My point was that you're here at FLC voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you, right? As for the citations, WP:CITE leaves a great deal of freedom. If you don't want so many citations to look the same (which I wouldn't object to), then you could, for example, use some sort of shortened footnote system. Goodraise 03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. I've thoroughly reviewed this nomination. I'll be happy to fully support it once that minor citation issue is dealt with. Goodraise 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "464 athletes from 25 National Olympic Committees...". Try not to have a sentence start with a number like this. That's the only thing that jumped out at me when I read the list. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – That one comment was my only concern about the list. Individual refs would be a nice luxury, but are not important enough to me to withhold support over. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm going out of town for three days, and will be able to address concerns when I return. Apologies, this was sudden. Geraldk (talk) 23:06, 5 November 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/List_of_1928_Winter_Olympics_medal_winners/archive1&oldid=1143872073"