Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hart Memorial Trophy

Hart Memorial Trophy

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. No new objections or comments, just supports. Promote. Geraldk 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is completely sourced and although it is not title "List of _____", the vast majority of the page is a list. Any issues people have will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Lists should be in chronological ordering.~~--Crzy cheetah 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's overlinked. For example, you have Gretzky's name linked 8-9 in a row, just one would be enough. There are other instances, too. This recently passed FL shows that linking once is enough.--Crzy cheetah 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That list managed to get away with using xxxx-xx... Anyway, I'll remove some of the double links. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFWIW, nearly every sports related publication I have handy uses reverse chronological order for lists such as this. I don't see a problem with using the same here. However, I hate the use of xxxx-xxxx to note the year for 1999-2000 NHL season. While I find it utterly ridiculous that someone would assume "1999-00" means "1999-1900", it seems a lot of people do. Ideally, all entries should use the same date format, which means each entry should be "2006-2007", "2005-2006", etc. Resolute 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying that every entry should be changed to xxxx-xxxx instead of xxxx-xx? And if it really is an issue, I'll switch the ordering around. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, on the other lists I've seen, ie the Devils and Avalanche players lists, they were advised to use the xxxx-xxxx format. Resolute 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay then, consider it done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As an added thought though, if there are more good images of players that have won the award, it would help add some colour and fill some white space to the right of the chart. Resolute 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I'm just a newbie here so please forgive any errors or mistakes. Here's my feedback (not based on any FA criteria):

The lead duplicates the history sentence for sentence for naming, donated after 1923-24 season and replacement of the trophy.

Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, so there will be duplicate info. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing about the trophy being replaced – is it the actual trophy? Where did it go? And who cares enough for it to be mentioned in the lead?

On a re-read, I do see that the trophies look different in the photos and that the original went to the Hall of Fame. But more clarity would be helpful. Canuckle 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent style on numbers in prose, three or 3 Done
Spell out MLB, NBA, NFL on first reference Done
Is it Original research or sourced that ‘the team A won trophy X times and Joe Thornton was first…’

Comment: It's not OR to just count up the number of times a team has won the trophy; there's no other way to do that than just count. Anthony Hit me up... 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of wikilinks to teams
Instead of a column titled "Win#", I’d prefer to see a column titled "Notes" with details on notability for that year's winner: ie “First win” “First player to win after mid-season trade” “also won the Art Ross”….”lead all defencemen in scoring that year.” “First American” “First European” "Tied with Iginla, won tiebreaker based on more first-place votes"

Comment: I wanted to avoid a notes section because I felt it wasn't necessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any references from outside the NHL?

Comment: It's an NHL trophy; the IIHF has no say in the trophy whatsoever, so there probably aren't any references outside the NHL. Anthony Hit me up... 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By outside of NHL, I meant nhl.com and its sub-site(?) legends of hockey. You know, newspapers, books and stuff. Canuckle 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any controversial picks?

There will always be controversial picks, but I couldn't find any sources that definitively said "____ is the worst choice" -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any controversy in reliable sources over the selection methods (eg are sportswriters the best qualified to choose?) or an Eastern bias for Eastern players?

Couldn't find any. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When does the vote take place? After or before the playoffs? Does playoff success play a factor in the selection? Add a sentence to distinguish it from the Conn Smythe MVP trophy for the playoffs. Done
The ranking method of the vote is pretty standard but could use a sentence or two more of clarification. Is a first-place vote worth 10 points and a second-place five? You mention a tie, was there ever a unanimous selection or a notable landslide choice?
Do they typically announce 3 or 4 contenders prior to the awards ceremony? Is that just hype, in that they know who won but just tease the top 3 for entertainment? Done
When and where do they give the awards out? Done
You mentioned the Hall of Fame, are there any other impacts on players selected? Salary? Bonuses?
Note that the sportswriters also vote on Lady Byng and Calder.

That's not really notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink Professional Hockey Writers Association then start an article on it so that it’s not a redlink.
Has the trophy ever been damaged or have rituals associated with it like the Stanley Cup? Does the winner keep it all year?

Not that I could find. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the h**l is the actual trophy supposed to look like anyway? Who made it and what is it made of? Are player's names inscribed on the bottom and replaced on regular basis?
Is there regular media speculation each year about the merits of candidates and can that be reflected in the article?
How do voters evaluate "Most Valuable" anyway? Is there an official rule book that you can quote as to criteria?
Personally, I favour the chronological order and the 19xx-xx year format. Canuckle 05:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of your suggestions would require a reliable source, which there are few of. However, I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As follow-up, just wanted to note for others that I too did some googling for reliable sources and the current article reflects generally what is out there. Canuckle 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although I'm not willing to withhold support based on these comments (at least initially), I agree with what a lot of Canuckle says. I think we could definitely expand the prose section of this article to more than just a brief description of the trophy. In fact, I'm wondering why the list of winners is even included in the article; Stanley Cup and List of Stanley Cup champions are two separate and distinct pages. Anthony Hit me up... 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are only 82 winners listed here, and if you split the two, the main page would be a stub. And I would love to add a long, detailed history on the trophy, but I can only add what the sources allow. Besides, a lot of it, such as salary bonuses, falls more under the category of trivia rather than vital information. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean a list of individual player bonuses. But it could stand a line that says the NHL-NHLPA collective agreement allows players to earn performance bonuses for placing in top 10 of voting for Hart (primary source = [1]) Canuckle 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it's that notable, because of course bonuses will be given out. But, if you feel strongly enough, you can go ahead and add info about that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Though I do think more images (of the players with the trophy, rather than them by themselves) would be nice, it is probably hard to get a hold of free-images like that. Bsroiaadn^Talk 04:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Most of my concerns were addressed, and I don't want to be nitpicky about every little thing; I know how hard FLCs can be. You've got my vote. Anthony Hit me up... 07:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good work, reads like a dream and is a very informative topic. Croat Canuck talk 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support what everyone else said already. Kaiser matias 00:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and a comment; I'd like to see active players highlighted. --Krm500 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and active players higlighted Done IrisKawling 05:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]