Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans/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 23:49, 3 September 2010 [1].

2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans edit

2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have reformatted this identically like 2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans and feel it is equally high caliber.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A shame to have no lead image whatsoever.
  • Not overly keen on the table format you've used in the "2009 Consensus All-America team" section. Same in the "Academic All-Americans" section.
    • They are in that format for two reasons: 1. they are artifacts from prior to my FLC attempt. 2. they are the same format as the 2010 version of this article, which just passed FLC a few weeks ago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Arizona State sort before Arizona?
  • I guess an en-dash means zero. So it should sort as a zero in every column. Which it doesn't (in Safari) right now.
    • I don't understand the sort functions that well. I am just repeating approved formatting from the aforementioned 2010 list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By team" table, not keen on those thick lines. Why are they there?
  • What on earth is GPA?
  • And " Ind. Engineering & Mgmnt"?
  • And " Int. Science, Business & Tech."? Think about this as if you were an Englishman who'd unfortunately missed out on the whole idea of this all-US concept, would you understand all the nuances and abbreviations that I'm sure you take for granted?
  • Date format in references should be consistently formatted per the MOS.
  • And not have ALL THE TITLE IN CAPS EVEN IF THE SOURCE DOES.
  • And use en-dashes per our MOS (see ref 20)

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –

Comments- It looks good to me and I would support this nomination (but I just did a quick review of the article). I generally prefer the template going below the references section, but that is not a big thing. Remember (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New comment - I would suggest changing the following sentence in the lead to read as follows (insert in bold): The 2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans is an honorary list that includes All-American selections from the Associated Press (AP), the United States Basketball Writers Association (USBWA), the Sporting News (TSN), and the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) drawn from the 2008–09 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. Thoughts?Remember (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Remember (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose
Surely we don't need a link to sport. I think most everyone that gets here is familiar with the concept.
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The 2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans is an honorary list" Americans is? This sentence could use another try.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"AP also lists honorable mention selections." Would work better if integrated into prior sentence.
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"aggregating the results of four major All-American teams" of the four, perhaps?
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
USBW or USBWA? Pick one and stick with it, please
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a more informative caption for the lede image?
done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out the positions the first time you use them.
I think that would look goofy. So I created a legend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make it explicit somewhere that this is for the 2008-09 season, and not the 2009-10 one.
Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blake Griffin is the only player with anything worth mentioning in the notes column for the by player chart? Considering Hansbrough won all/most the awards you list for Griffin two years prior, you can do better here.
Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that that laundry list of honours for Griffin needs to be cited
done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a better way to present the AP Honourable Mention stuff? It's an unreadable sea of blue as it is.
delinked redundant--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"On February 25, 2009 CoSIDA and" If you're going to use it, put CoSIDA in parenthesis in the last sentence of the lede. where the full name is.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it worth listing the Academic All-Americans, but not the Wooden or Senior lists?
Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Mike Schachtner UW-Green Bay" UW-Green Bay? Try "Wisconsin-Green Bay" or the like, unexplained acronyms are bad.
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 uses a date format out of sync with the rest
fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1; give a fuller citation. Does the book have an author, an ISBN, or at least the city of publication?
I don't have access to the citation any more. That is all the info I have.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 5; why are dates included as part of the title?
fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why the break from ESPN to ESPN.com for ref 26?
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 29 need Work/Publisher
fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing really all that major except one, but lots and lots of little issues. Courcelles 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blake Griffin is the only player with anything worth mentioning in the notes column for the by player chart? Considering Hansbrough won all/most the awards you list for Griffin two years prior, you can do better here.
Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Capped the rest, leaving this one out for the moment. I was using Hansbrough as an example, surely there are interesting things to say about most- of not all- of these players? Courcelles 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will call WP:WPCBB and WP:NBA and get opinions on whether they would prefer to have things like Conference POYs and first overall draft pick added. I would prefer not to add conference POY. Not averse to national statistical champions or number 1 draft.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jrcla2 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
;Jrcla2 thoughts re: Notes column
  • I agree with Tony that conference players of the year should not be included. They are certainly notable achievements, yes, but not notable enough to call out in an All-American page. If anyone wants to see that Player X was their conference's POY, all they have to do is click that player's link. There are conference POY navboxes for every D1 conference at this point.
  • Include NBA #1 overall selections – that is definitely worth mentioning (but it needs to be referenced also).
  • Only include major category statistical leaders if they were the number one leader (i.e., no need to mention Player X was the #2-leading scorer in the nation; only mention if he was #1)
  • Include any notable "firsts". If there even any to be mentioned, I would say "first player from School Z to be named a consensus first or second team All-American". Again, it probably won't apply very often, but if it does I feel it's worthy of a mention.
    • I don't know which firsts are important enough and think it would be OR to think of which ones are. Whereas we have a pretty well agreed on set of annual awards and statistical leadership categories, this one is a bit of an OR nightmare. I am staying away from this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can think of for the moment. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sorry I forgot to add my !vote. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the major National awards (Cousy, Freshman of the Year, Defensive POY, etc.) as well as NCAA Tournament MOP should be noted. Only other special case could be if the player received the honor posthumously. like Hank Gathers or Wayne Estes - but that's obviously a pretty rare and extreme case. Rikster2 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Curry led the nation in scoring and Griffin led in rebounding. Rikster2 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added. I will add sources to all these later. Also, keep an eye on 2010, which I am also changing to mirror this. Off the top of my head, I knew Wall led in assists, but was not sure who led in points or rebounds.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, Wall didn't lead the country in assists - he was third. If you ever need them, the top 5 in all major individual stat categories are listed on each season's page. Rikster2 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just took another look - I think the position key should be no more than 5 positions - PG, SG, C, PF and SF. If a player played more than one position, it can be noted as "PF-C" or "PG-SG" without having to note things like "swingman." People can figure it out and the key will be short and sweet. Rikster2 (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think the "By Player" list's default sort should be by Consensus points vs. starting with the AP team as the first five. People can always sort by the various granting parties if they are interested. Just my opinion on this one. Rikster2 (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know this was feedback from this or the 2010 nomination, but I am not a fan of listing the Wooden and Lowe's All-Americans. These lists are less All-American teams and more the finalist lists for these awards. I think the information is intresting and notable, but probably should reside on the pages for thos awards. This might take an overhaul to those pages to fit it cleanly, but my opinion is that would be the place for it to go. Also, I would recommend a deparate discussion about the format of these on Talk:WP CBB before we get too far along on converting the 70+ pages. I think good feedback is coming in as these are nominated as FLs, but we should have a WP:CBB POV on what info should be in vs. out, formats, etc. - especially when we look at what info is scalable to All-America lists from 40+ years ago. Probably would require inviting in all the regulars since not everyone checks the project page that often. Rikster2 (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think the thing to do is to call all concerned parties here and settle it now. Then implement it on the two lists currently in the FL domain. Whatever is agreed to here will probably be the default format for 2011 and years forward. Not so sure how much historical improvement is likely outside of the WP:CUP. I am going to post a notice on the talk page noting the disagreement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, then here are my suggestions to get the ball rolling. It IS important that the historical lists in the same format over time - this is the right thing to do to enable ease of use for readers and is frankly one of the reasons you have Wikipedia projects. I don't mind doing some of the work, but considering I did 98% of the work getting the 1939-2008 articles in the current format, I kind of feel I've "done my time" on them and would like to concentrate on new material:
    • As content, each list should include the consensus teams, individual teams and Academic AA teams. The new sortable list of all players is also helpful.
    • Only the teams used to determine the consensus teams should be included - this is a clear standard on what to include and not include and matches what the NCAA record book officially tracks. IE - no Wooden teams, Lowe's teams, ESPN.com teams, etc.
    • Use only the 5 positions on the court to show what position players play - SF, PF, C, SG, PG. I'd even be comfortable limiting it to three (G, F, C). Use dashes or slashes to show a player logged time at more than one position.
    • Keep the Academic All-Americans but only wikilink those with current Wikipedia articles. These guys are not necessarily notable due to their basketball achievements and articles don't need to be created (and in most cases shouldn't be created)
    • We need to decide on if we should keep the AP honorable mention list. I think it is interesting information and is often noted on mid-major star players' articles, but it's just a really long list and the format is ugly (I created it so I have no problem admitting that). However, showing the team as a big vertical list gives the topic way too much real estate in the article. The issue gets worse once you start to document the HM AA's from the 80s - where the lists are sometimes close to 100 players.
    • Might be interesting to add the AP Preseason All-Americans so the pre- and post- season selections can be compared. These started in the 1986-87 season. Others need to weigh in on this idea.
      • I think we should keep all players included on lists by all-selectors regardless of whether they contribute to consensus. Thus, HM as well as 4th and 5th teams should be included.
    • I will repeat my assertion that every player does NOT need to be cited on these articles to their University player pages. To me, the citing should prove that the teams are who the article says (or that any notes about honors are legit or that any statements in the lead are valid) - NOT to prove the players exist or that they played for the team listed. This info is confirmed in the All-American releases and is linked at the individual Wikipedia player pages - which are all just a click away from the All-American article itself.
    • The table abbreviation keys for the consensus teams and player lists are too big and obtrusive right now. Can the font be made smaller, the items listed in something other than a purely vertical table, etc.
    • Notes on the player table should only cover major awards tracked by the NCAA record book. IE - no Athlon, FOX, ESPN, etc Player of the Year awards. Again, a clear standard vs. confusion on what to include vs. not.
    • I am sure there are many discussion points we could have, but those are good starters before project team members go off and try to retro-fit the existing articles. Rikster2 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say if you're not going to list the Wooden and Lowes' All-Americans, then all mention of such things should be totally expunged from the lede. Though what makes it worth getting rid of those, and yet keeping the Academic lists? Courcelles 18:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because at least first team Academic All-Americans over time are also recorded in the NCAA Record Book - whereas Wooden and Lowe's All-Americans are not. The Wooden Award and Lowe's Senior CLASS award themselves ARE tracked, just not the lists of finalists that constitute their "All-American teams" Rikster2 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have a problem limiting the article to All-American lists mentioned in the NCAA record books. We could do what WP:CFB does and include all All-American teams considered to be produced for a national audience, which would include ESPN, Wooden and Lowes. I can go either way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If no one else has an opinion on Wooden and Lowe's I will remove them tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd prefer to keep them, though I wouldn't oppose promotion over it. (Since they're here, how are we really improving the list by removing them?) However, it they go, then the sentences in the lede really ought to go with them, since the article will no longer discuss them in the body. Courcelles 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think I'd prefer to keep them too. I am looking for people who want to suppport this article. Thus, I am hoping you want to keep them enough to support. I don't see you having any other issue with this list. We are sort of getting to decision time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, Support in present condition. Courcelles 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, I'll surprise you and support as well. My issues don't have to do with the quality of the article as an FL candidate, they just have to do with general WP:CBB POV. That's why I suggested a discussion there as opposed to on this nomination. I think there are a lot of policy issues to figure out for the project and this nomination just surfaced some of them. Rikster2 (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2010 (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/2009_NCAA_Men%27s_Basketball_All-Americans/archive1&oldid=1089081940"