Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 1960 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 21:47, 24 October 2011 [1].

List of 1960 Winter Olympics medal winners edit

List of 1960 Winter Olympics medal winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) , Courcelles 19:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time to bring another of this series here. Squaw Valley, the little town that came from literally nowhere to host these Games. Biathlon is contested for the first time, and amazingly, the host committee just didn't build a bobsleigh track! Hope you enjoy the latest entry in this series. Courcelles 19:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I'm reluctant to chip in here on this because:
  1. I've never even nominated a list or other article for FA or FL;
  2. I can only imagine how much hard work has gone into this;
  3. I don't have clear instructions for how to address the comments I want to make; and
  4. my remarks will come across as negative, when there's clearly more to praise here than criticize.

Having said that, however, permit me to respectfully offer these remarks. I won't be opposing or supporting, but offer these thoughts for other reviewers.

  • It looks as though the last 36 of the 41 refs here are all from the same Web site. That makes me a bit itchy, as I worry that we mostly just copied somebody else's work (last January).
  • The tables don't look very accessible to unsighted or even sighted users. It seems that the Event columns should be row headers; here they look like just another column. And a heading like "Men's" just seems incomplete. I don't know what to suggest here, other than to ask those more experienced in WP:accessibility issues (like User:RexxS) to see what they think.
    • Thanks to someone figuring out what to do with {{MedalistTable}} to accommodate the scope arguments, this is now sorted, row scopes added to the event fields. As to the "Men's", well, that's the description of the event. There's nothing else to call the event, the general type of event is always taken from the level 2 header above the table on these. Courcelles 22:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update, going back to put the row scopes in the last one of this series, the Cortina list provided the solution. They now say "Men's individual" instead of just men's. Only one event per discipline, so not strictly necessary, but it worked a few weeks ago when the 1956 list came through. Courcelles 22:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Men's details" seems even weirder (or naughtier) the more I look at it. Maybe some parentheses around "(details)"?
    • I think you're overthinking this one, parenthesis around details would just look silly, and break the format of all Olympics lists, a couple dozen of which are already FL's. Courcelles 22:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to see the "details" redlinks done away with. They seem less useful than, say, 2012 Hurricane Season, or some sure-to-be-notable-someday politician or actor, where at least the target is obvious.
    • Per WP:NSPORTS, all events at the Olympics are considered notable enough to have their own article -- that's why the redlinks are there. Courcelles 21:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what bugs me here isn't that there's a redlink text (to what deserves to be an article some day) in the middle of some prose, but more of a bait-and-switch, teasing offer of here-are-some-details — psych out! no there's not, ha ha, sucker!. Do you see what I mean? We gone out of our way to separately offer some – oops! – non-details. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And anyway, why aren't these things linking to subsections of Figure skating at the 1960 Winter Olympics? Isn't that what most (all?) of the other details links are doing (to the respective main articles)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done as an interim measure, though someoen is going to have to remember to undo that once the articles get written... Courcelles 15:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes country names are italicized, sometimes they're not. It seems they should be consistent, unless there's some reason for the inconsistency, in which case that should be (better) explained.
  • As a sports ignoramus looking at the speed skating table, I'm wondering why, in the Men's 1500 metres event, no silver medal was awarded. Perhaps a footnote?
    • Two racers tied for first, in which case no silver is awarded (as placings are tied for first, tied for first, third). Added a footnote. Courcelles 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't feel strongly enough about these (perhaps minor) details to get up on my hind legs to oppose the nom, but they seem like enough (in my mind) to keep the article from deserving "Featured" status. I nevertheless congratulate and thank the editors who've worked on this page; I do sincerely appreciate their efforts. Maybe the FLC process will both improve the article and get it to "featured"? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can support the featuring of this list, now, too. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support –

  • Comma would be well-place before "omitting bobsleigh and adding men's biathlon".
  • Does "Men's" need to be capitalized three times in the last sentence of the lead? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both handled, thanks, Giants. Courcelles 23:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I do not think WP:ITALICS applies to VIII Olympic Winter Games.
    • I actually think the italics was your idea a few of these lists ago... WP:ITALICS is not absolute likeWP:BOLD is in any respect. Courcelles 06:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? I can't remember... Possibly. If true, now I don't see a reason for the italics. But I won't push this one further, although uniformization across these series would be ideal. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... 1956 Winter Olympics omitting bobsleigh, and adding men's biathlon..." – I'd put the first comma right after 'Olympics'.
  • "... the latter being biathlon's first appearance in Olympic competition" – I'd make this a new sentence ("This was biathlon's first appearance...") and link it to the following about military patrol.
    • Tweaked to read "...and adding a sport new to Olympic competition, men's biathlon. The sport of military patrol, similar to biathlon, had previously been a medal sport in 1924..." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... was by necessity; the venue..." – the semicolon could be replaced by 'as'/'since'/'because'. I think 'site' would sound better than 'venue', as I tend to associate the latter with an individual infrastructure (arena, stadium...).
  • "... lacked an existing bobsleigh track" – 'existing' is extraneous.
  • You think it is necessary to state that women also competed at these Games? In my guess, this would be far more relevant for earlier Games, where women were in fact a small percentage of the competitors and took part in very few events... but in the 60s this was not considered 'exotic' anymore.
    • It sore of was strange, in the early 60's, of the eight sports, women were barred from competing in four of them. (Indeed, only in Sochi will women be allowed to participate in ski jumping!) Courcelles 06:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, then I would rephrase to emphasize how relevant that situation was. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Soviet Union was awarded the most medals, with its athletes winning seven gold medals, five silver medals, and nine bronze medals, for a total of 21 medals overall." – 'medal' overdose!
  • "...12 of the available 18 medals in that sport, and..."
    • Changed to "..winning 12 of the available 18 cross-country medals and the remaining six medals being won..." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No need to say "cross-country", the sport's been stated at the beginning. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Parutakupiu (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2011 (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_1960_Winter_Olympics_medal_winners/archive1&oldid=1089080881"