Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pittsburgh Pirates first-round draft picks/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 17:58, 14 February 2011 [1].

List of Pittsburgh Pirates first-round draft picks edit

List of Pittsburgh Pirates first-round draft picks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 08:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I'm back baby! (sort of) Survived semester 1 of law school (aka boot camp) and now I have at least a little more time to return to Wiki editing. After wrapping up another article I'd left hanging I figured I should jump back into comfortable waters to restart my list work. Staxringold talkcontribs 08:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5
Comments from KV5
  • Bonds' caption should be seven instead of "7"
  • "estbalishment" - !?
  • "and a third baseman though have never selected" - and a third baseman, but have never selected
  • "Seven of the players"
  • "Three of the Pirates'"
  • "on the 1971 championship team while Steve Nicosia (1973)" - on the 1971 championship team, and Steve Nicosia (1973)
  • "seven Most Valuable Player awards, two while with Pittsburgh, more than any other player." - this is ambiguous wording. Is it the seven MVPs that's the most among players, or the two with Pittsburgh? (I know the answer, but FLC is the devil's advocate, after all.)
  • Went with the progression link as that's actually on the single-season record, not just individual champs. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though they did receive a compensation pick for not signing second-round selection Tanner Scheppers in 2008 which they used to take Victor Black in 2009." - kind of run-on-y and a bit ambiguous. I might suggest the following re-word: though they did receive a compensation pick in 2008 for not signing second-round selection Tanner Scheppers; the selection was used to take Victor Black in 2009.
  • "(with permission from MLB)," - change comma to semicolon
  • "the Pirates' renegotiated" - remove apostrophe
  • NBSP the years used as indicators in the table
  • Fix sorting of Tony Sanchez.
  • J.J. should be J. J.

Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support — KV5 • Talk • 12:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments welcome back Stax, kinda missed you in a regular kinda way! Some stuff, you know the score...
  • Why is Rule 4 Draft linked in the opening sentence or so? It's a redirect, but I see no other link to a draft in that opening bit... I guess it should link in "of the draft" (which probably needs explanation actually...)
  • "players picked in the first round by Pittsburgh" do you really need to re-iterate that it was in the first round (you've got the title of the list and your stuff in the first para of the lead to cover this enough, surely?)
  • "did not appear in the World Series" what does this mean to a non-expert? got a nice link?
  • This is a complex issue, somewhat. Berra played for the Pirates the year they won a championship and his Wiki article (for what that's worth) lists him as a champion. I believe the rule is that anyone who appeared for the team that season gets a ring, whether or not you actually appear in the series. For example Bengie Molina appeared for both the Rangers AND the Giants last season, so Yahoo Sports noted that he would get a World Series ring no matter who won. The idea is that Berra helped the Pirates win a championship that year (by playing in the games he did play in) even though he didn't actually appear in the series that won them the ring. Think of it this way, President Bush was thanking you equally for working for his campaign in 2000 whether you were a staffer in Wyoming (which he dominantly won), Massachusetts (where he lost horribly), or Florida (effectively the "World Series" that gave him the presidency). Regardless of the specific effect of your actions you generally contributed to the success. Similarly though Berra did not participate in the World Series they won (which directly got them the championship) he participated in the season overall. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect, given the complexity of the explanation (!) it needs rephrasing.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that was a bad explanation. What I mean is that when I hear "So and so won a championship" your initial thought is that they actually participated in the series/game/whatever that awarded the championship, but that's not the rule in MLB. Hence the current phrasing about winning, but with a note that he didn't play in the series. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including two while with Pittsburgh" not sure of the point of "while" here?
  • " after-deadline" perhaps an Americanism but I'd prefer post-deadline?
  • "and ultimately the Pirates renegotiated a final deal" a lot of finality here. Just one would do.
  • Per WP:ACCESS (we've been working a lot with User:RexxS lately) can you check that § is accessible, i.e. read out by a screen-reader? Not a major point, but one which if we can pervade the FLC process with, eventually it'll be second nature to us all and no trauma to use in future.
  • Where can I check that? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Best bet is to ask User:RexxS directly. He's been very generous with his time with us ACCESS luddites/philistines, so if you're willing to ask him, no doubt he'll be willing to help out! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The § is accessible for JAWS users (I checked with Graham87), and shows up as º in Lynx, so I doubt there is any accessibility problem with it. --RexxS (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you using the upright parameter for the images? Maholm shows narrow vs Walker. Perhaps it's a resolution thing?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Now that you've attracted my attention, I ought to say that the tables' accessibility would benefit from marking up the column and row headers. MOS:ACCESS#Data tables is the guideline, and I'd be happy to help if needed. By the way, is everything in the main table centred just because that's a preference, or would it be just as good if everything were left-aligned? --RexxS (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's purely style for the center-alignment, but I really do feel it looks better that way. As for "marking up the column/row headers", what do you mean? Staxringold talkcontribs 04:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Row headers are probably something new since you were last here, Stax; the primary element in each row (here, the players' names) should be marked up as headers. Good baseball example is Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A). — KV5 • Talk • 03:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being cryptic, Stax. If we make the player's name into a row header, we can ensure that a screen reader is able to announce that for each data cell, if required. Imagine going down the Position column blindly. If all you heard was "Position, Outfielder", "Position Shortstop", then you'd not get much information, whereas if you heard "Doug Dickerson, Position, Outfielder", "Richie Hebner '71, Position, Shortstop", that would be much more informative. We want to allow visually-impaired viewers to navigate tables in any way they want – as sighted viewers can. The markup you need is e.g. ! scope="row" | Doug Dickerson, for each player's name cell. The complication here is that headers are bold & centred by default, so we normally force them back to left-aligned and normal weight with the "plainrowheaders" class. If you're still uncertain and you'd like me to mark-up this list as an example for you, I'd be happy to do that for you. --RexxS (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be totally fine with left aligned text, so if you can do up this list that'd be great. I'm just worried from the sound of what you're saying that it'll change the outward look of the list (beyond the text alignment). Will the names still be in their own column? Staxringold talkcontribs 04:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the names still have their own column; the only change you'll see, if you're using "plainrowheaders", is that the names will have a slightly darker background, the same color of the column headers. — KV5 • Talk • 12:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite my failure to make row headers into row headers (as opposed to column headers) first time, I've now managed to mark up the table correctly. I hope that looking at the current wiki-code, you can see the general principle. The plainrowheaders has no effect on accessibility, but obviously creates a visual effect that you may prefer. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coolio, thanks! Why is it, though, that you can't center align with this additional screen-reader-friendliness? Staxringold talkcontribs 15:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, mainly because it was a real struggle to get "plainrowheaders" incorporated into common.css (see MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 12#some wikitable ideas and MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 12#Bold row headers for a blow-by-blow). It is only a minority proportion of tables (such as yours) which would benefit from the "non-bold, but centred" styling, so it is much harder to go to the keepers of common.css and argue for yet another style class. That's not to say it can't be done, but I'm going to have to take more ammunition to the debate than "it looks better centred", as you can see from those discussions I linked above. In the meantime, if you feel strongly about the visual effect (and there's no reason why you shouldn't), then applying style="text-align: center;" to each row header will produce the desired effect, but it's very messy - and don't let Jack Merridew know I told you! --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • In the second paragraph, you could add a sentence on any players from Pennsylvania. The lead is plenty long as is so it's not necessary.
    • Having the compensatory draft picks start near the end of the third paragraph threw me off, that stuff seems to fit much better in the fourth; I'd move the last couple sentences down.
    • On a note unrelated to the FLC, have we ever had a first-round draft pick reach the Hall of Fame? We have that sentence in probably every article and I can't remember a single one. (There will probably be one in the last of the 30 lists we write up..)
  • Jim Rice from the Red Sox, and Dave Winfield from the Padres. Also should be (but won't be) Clemens from the Sox and of course Bonds. Plus Biggio for the Astros will get in eventually. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Griffey and Jeter also, and probably Mauer and Longoria down the road. Manny for the Indians, ARod for the Ms, and Palmeiro for the Cubs are more PED should-be-but-might-nots. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yount and Molitor for the Brewers are in, Larkin will get in for the Reds next couple years. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense when you think about it. Draft started in 1965, probably at least 1-2 years of minors, and a HoF career is 20ish years, then 5 years before HoF ballot #1. So you're talking 1990-92 for the absolute earliest possible draftee elections. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy fixes, do those and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, issues fixed. Yeah, it seems like there are a lot on the horizon at least for the Hall. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any problems other than Wizardman's paragraph balancing concern. I know you'll sort that out, so... Courcelles 08:36, 12 February 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_Pittsburgh_Pirates_first-round_draft_picks/archive1&oldid=1143879462"