Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in curling/archive1

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 21:42, 22 March 2010 [1].

---

List of Olympic medalists in curling

List of Olympic medalists in curling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in curling/archive1

I'm now attempting to start a new consecutive months streak, though this one will probably end in the summer. This is the second of a number of Olympics-related FLCs that will be heading this way in the coming weeks. This one is modeled after the many current medalist FLs, such as List of Olympic medalists in figure skating, but with a few key differences, such as the lack of a fancy ToC (with just two events there isn't a need for one), lack of a "Medals per year" section (with just two events there isn't a need for one), and images added to the athlete medal leaders table. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Parutakupiu: Make sure you are consistent with the English variant you're applying to the whole page, as I noticed both "programme" and "program" in the lead section; Fixed. Disambiguate The Herald; Done. You first link "demonstration sport" on the second paragraph, but you have "demonstration event" showing first in the previous paragraph; Fixed the first usage. "Teams from Canada have been successful in the event since it's return to the program" — event or sport? "it's return" → "its return"; Fixed. [Note 1] and [Note 2] would be more visible if they were placed just after  Great Britain (GBR) and  Sweden (SWE); Done. In the "Notes" section, I'd place a bullet before each note, to make them more perceivable as describing distinct things; Done. In the "See also" section, lowercase "Champions" to avoid redirects; Done. Update the link to the IOC results database; Done. Some inconsistency regarding the format of specific references: The IOC references #1 and #13 don't display the website name as in #10; Fixed. Why isn't "BBC Sport" linked as well? Link added. Check here on how to format citations based on data from Sports-Reference.com. Fixed. A suggestion (you can follow or not): add the World Curling Federation and IOC main pages in the "External links" section. Parutakupiu (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Pages from both sites are used as references, so I don't know if it's necessary. Thanks for the review! -- Scorpion0422 18:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC) You're right Parutakupiu (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC) One last issue: the first four sentences on the second paragraph all sound like a continuous repetition. Can't you rewrite them so that it says that curling was contested as a demonstration sport in 1932, 1988 and 1992? Parutakupiu (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Done. -- Scorpion0422 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Opening sentences... it's much more than a sport contested at the Olympics. Perhaps give a brief historical description of the sport and then say it's been contested at the Winter Olympics since.... It does go into history in the next sentence. I tried something like that at first, but in the end the first sentence always became too long and/or cluttered, and it's usually good to start with something simple. " men's curling tournament was held at the 1924 Winter Olympics, then the sport was" perhaps "Olympics before the sport was removed..."? Done. And instead of just "until 1998", maybe "until the 1998 games" appropriately linked. Done. "For 82 years, the curling tournament at the 1924 Olympics .." I'd turn it around. I'd say that the "1924 tournament was considered a demonstration..." etc, "until, in 2006..." Shortened sentence to "For 82 years, the 1924 tournament was considered a ..." "who were representing Great Britain." just "who represented" Done. "and turned up evidence that the sport " don't like "turned up" at all. Maybe, "published"? Switched to "found" The 98 winter games is quickly overlinked. Fixed. "curling had a strong following in Canada.[6] Curling returned as a " quick repeat of curling, could use a rephrase. Fixed. I think you could use a few words to describe the fact curling is a team sport. I added "team" to "sport" in the first sentence. " In 2010, Anette Norberg, Eva Lund and Cathrine Lindahl of Sweden won the gold medal in the women's tournament, becoming the first curlers to win consecutive gold medal" - maybe you should say that "In 2006 and 2010"? The way the sentence is phrased, it would be inaccurate because they didn't win a second gold in 2006. "According to the IOC, Carl August Kronlund of Sweden was the oldest Winter Olympics medalist, winning silver in 1924 at the age of 59. Robin Welsh of Great Britain was the oldest Winter Olympics gold medalist, winning in 1924 at the age of 54.[10]" can you merge these to avoid the repeat of "the oldest Winter Olympics... medalist, winning ... in ... at the age of .." in consecutive sentences? I don't think that merging would be the best idea, it would make the sentence too awkward. I switched the second use of "at the age of" to "when he was". Medal winners table is normally sortable. Do you mean the medal leaders table? Because none of main table lists in any of the current FLs are sortable. Why abbreviate when you don't go onto to use, e.g. ISOH, NWOOC? Habit. Removed. Second gen ref doesn't make any relevant sense to me. It's a link to the WCF database. When you pick a championship (ie. the Olympic tournament), it gives a quick list of links to complete results. Unfortunately, it wouldn't let me link directly to the Olympic portion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC "Although it was removed from the official programme, curling was contested as a demonstration sport in 1932." seems to contradict "A men's curling tournament was held at the 1924 Winter Olympics, then the sport was removed from the programme until 1998." to me. Not really, demonstration and official events are completely different things. Well the sentence says it was removed "from the programme" after 1924. Does this mean the "programme" only includes official events? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Added "official". Canada is overlinked. No it's not, Canada is linked once and Canada [at the Winter Olympics] is linked once. That's a little confusing. Easter-egg style... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Why is it confusing? There are a bunch of easter egg links in there for other nations. It's the best way to insert relevent links without making it repetitive. -- Scorpion0422 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) "IOC subsequently awarded the top three teams honorary" so, still unofficial then? No, it was official. Considering that all of the members were dead, they couldn't just give them all medals, so there were posthumously recognized with honorary gold medals. Okay, is it possible that "honorary" could be misconstrued as still unofficial (as I did)? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I suppose, what do you recommend? Perhaps something like "posthumously awarded official medals" or similar? That way there's really no way for getting it confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Done. -- Scorpion0422 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• Regarding demonstration sport and medals won, the article states that the 1924 team did not win "official" medals. This was because the sport was considered a demonstration sport in 1924. This sentence seems to indicate that medals were awarded in 1924 but they were not counted as official by the IOC, "For 82 years, the 1924 tournament was considered a demonstration sport, so the medals were not officially counted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)." Then the article states that the IOC awarded "honorary" medals. Also later the article says the two oldest Winter Olympic medallists are Kronlund and Welsh, who won medals in 1924. Does that mean the 1924 teams won two medals, one in 1924 and another around 2006? I think if the medals awarded posthumously are considered to be official then you should remove "honorary" and explicitly state that the teams were entered into the record books as Olympic medallists. User:H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a bit confusing, but what happened was that the sport was apparantly contested as a full official event in 1924 (and remember, the 1924 games weren't considered full Olympics until afterwards, I think that may have added to the confusion). Then, for whatever reason, it was became considered a demonstration event, and remained categorized as such until 2006. They weren't given new medals in 2006, they were just given the "honorary" official medals, meaning they were now considered full medalists (this article explains it much better than I can). I switched the bit about being awarded posthumous honorary medals to "The IOC subsequently recognized the top three teams as full medal winners". Does that help? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand a little better now. I think your wording is good. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Support H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support happy now the "official", "demonstration", "honorary" thing has been resolved. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support another fine medalist list. Reywas92^Talk 21:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.