Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Golden Spikes 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 16:09, 30 September 2012 [1].

Golden Spikes Award edit

Golden Spikes Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past month and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Zepppep (talk) Zepppep (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
;Comments:
  • Comment

Lead section:

  • Would move current third sentence to become the first sentence. Yes, Goldenspikesaward.com states the award is given to the "top" player but the quote from the third sentence addresses it so much better (if quotes aren't desired, leaving the ref would suffice).
  • I'd rather stick to the current format. Even though the criteria is "official," but we know that the award is given to the best amateur baseball player, not necessarily one who meets the criteria. Take Bryce Harper as an example, who threw self-destructive temper tantrums and challenging umpire calls at the NJC World Series.[2] That doesn't really satisfy the "exemplary sportsmanship" part of the criteria, yet he still won the award in 2010. For that reason, I'd rather state that it is given to the "best" amateur player and then go into the criteria (which is unofficially secondary to being the best). —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I didn't notice any inconsistencies with spelling but in case there are, "honours" would be British English so make sure whatever is selected, it's consistent.)
  • "Honours" is only used once, but thank you for bringing this up, as previous discussion suggested that since baseball was invented in the US, then American English should be used. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the reason would be "strong national ties to a topic" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Zepppep (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Jennings and Buster Posey were voted the top rookie" -- make it "rookies"
  • "...a few years after" -- be precise, otherwise if it's not, might be considered trivial and could be left out
  • I'd rather stick with "a few", but I would be willing to change to "several years after" as a compromise (provided these terms aren't weasel words. I really don't want to have to say "three and two years, respectively", since it would severely clutter the sentence. And I don't think it's trivial; clarifying this would help, as most players aren't expected to win the Rookie of the Year Award in the same year as a college award, since this would mean directly going to the majors from college (Horner is the only exception in this case). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sentence is cluttered IMO (see below on how to fix, and thus avoid this). I would phrase the part about Jennings and Posey perhaps as: "Jason Jennings and Buster Posey won the GSA and were later voted Rookie of the Year, in 20XX and 20XX." "Later" might still seem a bit ambiguous but it's tied to "rookie" so therefore lets the reader know it came in their first MLB season, and since the players are linkable, the reader can click on the links if they want to know more. I think this is more specific than the current iteration. Zepppep (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only one winner (Horner)..." -- might suggest changing it to "Only Horner..."
I would have this be its own sentence as it seems a bit of a run-on currently. Additionally, there's too much to try and weave together between this mention and the Jennings and Posey mention. Lastly, since Horner seems to be setting quite an act to follow, I believe it would be fine to give him his own sentence. Zepppep (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, Horner shouldn't have his own sentence, especially when it is only the Rookie of the Year that is being discussed. Horner's sentence by itself would just read "Only Horner achieved the Rookie of the Year Award in the same year." For me, that's too short to be a standalone sentence, given the fact that I'm trying to compare and contrast Jennings and Posey with Horner. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the 2005 winner, won the award" -- redundant. Also, look to combine that sentence with the next one as the way it currently reads, the validity of the mention might be a bit tough to discover (also, try to word it in a way that removes "switched positions to"). Is Gordon the only winner to have won the GSA at one position and then a GGA at another? If so, state it. Also, how long had he been playing outfield before he won the '11 GGA? If he had been playing OF for a few seasons it might be giving too much weight to his defensive skills and perhaps lessening the possible real reason he won the GSA -- for his offensive numbers?
I'm not too sure if Gordon is the only one to win the GSA and GG at different positions. Even if he is (which I'm guessing is true), I still can't put that statement there as an absolute fact (i.e. stating how he is the "only player"), since I have found no sources supporting the claim (making the claim original research). He won the GG in only his second season as an outfielder. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a source can't be found, I would have perhaps put it this way: "Alex Gordon won the award in 2005 and then entered the Majors as a third baseman before winning a GGA in 2011 as a leftfielder. Zepppep (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the sentence slightly to that wording. However, I kept the two sentences separate, since it would be an overload of information if I amalgamate the two sentences together. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winners section:

  • Change links from athletic dept. of a school to baseball program of a school. Detected 3 instances of this. I know at least one, Florida Gators, has a dedicated article for its baseball program (Florida Gators baseball).
I would make the link as relevant as possible, particularly if the athletic dept. for a school has a long article, it could prove quite helpful to the reader (the reason we do all this stuff, right?). Zepppep (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provide location in reference markup for those references where the location may not be in the newspaper name per Wikipedia:Citing sources. For example, #10 is from AJC.com (Atlanta Journal-Constitution). Use "location=" in reference mark-up. Zepppep (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. The problem was the "newspaper=" part did not show up when I used "work=ajc.com", so I utilized "publisher=ajc.com" instead. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about #20? Reader isn't informed where The Times Daily hails from. Is #11 a reliable source? I recall reading somewhere about making the newspaper/publisher linkable when appropriate in the reference markup, as exemplified at Wikipedia:Citation templates, but I can't recall where I read it. I do believe it is not required, however, but it may be something to consider. (I prefer it because it allows the reader to easily click on the article link concerning that book/publication/organization should they so choose.) Zepppep (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added location for ref 20. And yes, even I acknowledge that ref 11 does appear a bit shady. It's mostly focusses on local coverage from the Phoenix area (perhaps that may be why it's not so well known). I'm not sure now; the article was written by one of the website's 3 official editors [3] and the info given in the article is factual (i.e. it's the only website I could find that stated Horner being the only player to achieve those three honours in one year). —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I suppose having a citing a source is always a good thing, but are you doing it mainly to avoid possible OR contention or more so to verify the fact? Are you thinking it's likely to be challenged? Zepppep (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More to avoid potential OR. I simply can't put two and two together and say, as Horner won x and y (and happens to be the only one to appear on both lists in the same year), he's the only one to achieve this. Here, I actually needed a source to confirm he did both. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 19, 22 and 23 need location info. Essentially any newspaper where the location isn't in the name, the location should be provided. Zepppep (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are the chances of getting a photo of the award into the article? It's a pretty cool looking award. Zepppep (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching Flickr for a free image, but I wasn't able to find any. Unfortunately, all the pics of the award I have found so far are non-free. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded a fair-use logo of the Golden Spikes Award. I think that should suffice. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "ten members of the National College Baseball Hall of Fame have won the Golden Spikes Award" is that the right way round? Were they in the HoF before winning the Golden Spikes Award?
  • "In total, seven...." In total is redundant.
  • "a few years " a bit loose.
  • Changed to "several," but that also sounds kinda loose. And I don't want to list out respective years. Is there a better alternative? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Majors " what is this? Is that MLB?
  • Fixed. Changed to MLB and wikilinked it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The award is presented annually at Studio 42 of the MLB Network" this probably didn't exist in 1978, what happened "back in the day"?
  • I tried Googling it, but so far, I haven't been able to find any sources stating where the award was presented back in the day. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Denotes player also won the Rookie of the Year Award in the same year" you're actually denoting the year with this...
  • Done. Removed all existing "denotes."
  • What I meant was, you're using this symbology on the year of the award, not the recipient, so strictly the key should say "year in which player won... the same year", but that's not great either... You don't have to have colours, you could just use the symbols... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Removed all colour and moved symbols to player's name col. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Denotes player also won the Dick Howser Trophy in the same year" ditto.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Minor point, but if reference 3 covers each of the first two sentences, it doesn't need to be used for each sentence. One cite at the end of the material covered is sufficient for verifiability.
  • The Tim Lincecum photo caption needs a reference, since nothing else in the article covers the Cy Young Awards.
  • If ref 11 is acknowledged as "shady" by the nominator, why are we using it? If it's true that nothing else of higher quality exists to cite the fact it's used for, maybe it doesn't belong in this article for now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stated that it could be shady because it comes from not such a well-known website (as opposed to ESPN or MLB.com), due to the fact that it covers only the sports teams based around Phoenix. In my opinion, the source does have some credibility to it, as it was written by one of the website's 3 official editors. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked for further comments on my talk page. My further comment is that I don't think the source is reliable, and I think the fact is cites should be removed if a stronger citation doesn't exist. Obviously, others can challenge my opinion, and if they can produce evidence of reliability stronger than the site having editors, I want them to do so. Has information from the site been used in any mainstream publications? Giants2008 (Talk) 19:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muboshgu commented below on how the website's about page "does quell some concerns." I read up more on that page and found out that the website states that their "work has been featured, syndicated, and/or linked to by ESPN, Deadspin.com, USAToday.com, SI.com, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters." Provided that what they stated is indeed true, I don't think the website should be considered unreliable, since all these reliable news sources utilize it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds a little better, but I'm still wary of the site. I'd feel better if Muboshgu struck out his concern about it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muboshgu stated that he is "unsure" of whether to keep the Fanster source or replace it with the other source that is more vague. Which source do you think would be better? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that I'm inclined to go with, "when in doubt, throw it out". A FL should be beyond reproach, and if a source leaves us unsure, we're probably better off without it, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, so which source is the one that leaves us unsure? The Fanster.com one or the reliable yet vague encyclopedia. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Muboshgu is saying that both sources leave us unsure, and that the fact they support should be removed. You'd have to ask him to confirm that, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I guess so. I'd be inclined to leave it out entirely, and then I'd be fine giving full support. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Removed the sources and the fact. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Refs should come after punctuation, currently ref 8 does not
  • There isn't any punctuation before or after ref 8. It currently reads "he was the first overall MLB draft pick[8] and proceeded to win." I never use a serial comma, as I always utilize Canadian English (which is similar to British English). —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I made clear what my point was. Refs are supposed to be positioned after punctuation, currently that ref does not. Therefore, as you don't use the serial comma, it would be best to move it to the end of the sentence. NapHit (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it was my fault more not being clear enough. NapHit (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...also achieved the Rookie of the Year Award" achieved doesn't sound right, perhaps change to received.

NapHit (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks good, one point is that the wording in the third sentence of paragraph three could be adjusted. Instead of, "Although the award can be given to any amateur player, it has always been given to a college baseball player" maybe a better option would be "Although it can be given to any amateur player, the award has always been given to a college baseball player." I bring this up because the prior two sentences both the contain "the award", therefore it might be advisable to move the term to later in the third sentence to make it less redundant. AutomaticStrikeout 18:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments:

Comments' Sorry to be tardy to the party. It seems that many issues have been addressed so far.

  • It is too bad there's no free image of the trophy, but is there a logo we can get a non-free rationale for?
  • There's a logo available on the main website and on Baseball Almanac. Unfortunately, I have no experience on how to add a non-free rationale image and have only added two images to WP during my tenure here. Could someone with more experience in WP media help? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I've just uploaded the logo using Upload Wizard. Can someone delete the duplicate image of the file, as I thought the first attempt of uploading had failed. Guess not. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol used for ROY in that same season only applies to Horner. I wonder if it makes sense to use it. It's very rare for a player to go from college to MLB that quickly. Maybe it should just be ROY at any time, to include Jennings and Posey.
  • Like Giants2008, I'm concerned about the "fanster.com" source. A more traditional RS would satisfy this. Although, the website's "About" page does quell some concerns. I'll think on this source more.
  • I found a Braves Encyclopedia source that comes very close to verifying the claim made. However, it only states that Horner "still holds the distinction of being the only player selected College Player of the Year and a major league Rookie of the Year in the same season." The only problem is: it doesn't specifically mention the Golden Spikes Award (it's only implied, as the Baseball America College Player of the Year Award didn't exist back then) and doesn't mention him being first overall draft pick. Should I replace the Fanster.com source or leave it for now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alex Gordon won the award in 2005 and then entered the MLB in 2007 as a third baseman.[12][13] However, he switched positions and moved to left field, where he won a Gold Glove Award in 2011.[14]" - while this is true, I'm not sure why we're highlighting this, especially since other GS winners have won GG awards. It seems slightly off-topic, while the Dick Howser trophy, in contrast, is the bullseye of the target. In fact, I think the Dick Howser Trophy, which covers the same ground, should get a little more emphasis than second to last sentence in a decent sized paragraph.
  • Done. Replaced Gordon's info with single-game achievements of several award winners and delved into the fact that the Dick Howser Trophy is considered the college baseball equivalent of the Heisman Trophy). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The award is presented annually at Studio 42 of the MLB Network" - that's only a recent development. Where was it presented before the MLB Network existed?
  • As previously addressed in The Rambling Man's resolved comments, I haven't been able to find any sources stating where the award was presented back in the day. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, failed to read that. In that case, can we at least say when it began to be held at the MLB Network studios? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table, on Ben McDonald's row, "LSU" --> "Louisiana State" for uniformity

– Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support All concerns addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Harrias talk 11:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, but the use of italics to indicate something in the table may not be accessible for screen-reader users. I don't know if anyone else can provide any further guidance either way on this issue? That said, it is only a minor point, and I'm happy to support this article's promotion. Nice work. Harrias talk 11:34, 30 September 2012 (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/Golden_Spikes_Award/archive1&oldid=1086352796"