Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Capitals seasons/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 15:49, 6 July 2010 [1].

List of Washington Capitals seasons edit

List of Washington Capitals seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): -- Nomader (Talk) 03:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets the FL criteria. I've based it mainly off of the List of New Jersey Devils seasons, which was in turn based on List of Calgary Flames seasons, List of New York Islanders seasons, and List of New York Rangers seasons. Sorry I haven't been around here lately, and I look forward to any feedback you have to give me. Thanks. -- Nomader (Talk) 03:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment Good work on addressing concerns (Wd like to know if there's a script for capping cmts) Sandman888 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* lead cd be longer, see List of FC Barcelona seasons for an example.
    • To be fair, the Capitals don't have half the tradition FC Barcelona does-- the Caps have existed for less than half of the time that Barcelona has and Washington has never won a championship. I'll put in some more details around the edges and I'll make a note here once I've added to the lead. -- Nomader (Talk) 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for the time delay, but I've expanded the lead to address your concerns. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • what makes hockey-reference.com a respectable source? Has any reliable third party commented on it?
    • I used it because it's been used extensively in List of New York Islanders seasons and List of New Jersey Devils seasons. This is a Yahoo! Sports story about the website, although I'm not sure if that's a good enough source. If it isn't I'll ask WP:HOCKEY about it. -- Nomader (Talk) 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not entirely convinced by a blog on yahoo. In fact the blog seem to lend greater credence to hockeydb.com. Why didnt you use that one instead? Sandman888 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I did-- I used hockeydb.com for all of the general information in the graph (I listed it under "general" in the references section). However hockeydb.com doesn't have specific stats from the playoffs, so I used hockey-reference.com for playoff specific stats. It has precedent in the other lists I mentioned in the nomination so I figured it was reliable. I've asked WP:HOCKEY if they can show its reliability on their talk page here. -- Nomader (Talk) 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The NY Times uses it here as a source about Brian Leetch. -- Nomader (Talk) 16:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm the NY Times ref is a little weak, as it is not a comment, and could be a sloppy journalist including a link. However if it's systematically used by the times, or any other newsservice, I'll grant that as evidence of RS. Sandman888 (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • See all the news articles that talk about it here. Also, it's run by the same company (Sports Reference LLC) as Baseball-Reference.com, which you said you weer OK with here. Google News is usually good to prove a websites reliability. Mm40 (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I know what I've said. The respectability of baseball-reference does not spill over into hockey-reference.com. 14 news hits is hardly much, but some of the articles seem to comment on it, which proves reliability (for me). However on the WT:HOCKEY talkpage, it seems there are better sources available, so will not support using hockey-reference Sandman888 (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've removed the www.hockey-reference.com references and replaced them with a reference from the Washington Capitals media guide per discussion at WT:HOCKEY. -- Nomader (Talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm frankly curious - if a blog isn't convincing you of hockey-reference.com, why would the self-same blog convince you regarding hockeydb.com to the point where you recommend using it instead?  Ravenswing  16:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Obviously because the phrasing of the blog makes it highly likely that a reliable third party has commented on it, if it is self-published. Sandman888 (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • note g doesn't read right to me.
  • why two columns of seasons? Isn't one sufficient? You cd just include the NHL seasons as a see also.
    • The amount of NHL seasons would just be overwhelming and would require another separate graph. The two columns allow the reader to look at both general information about the season while also allowing them to see specific information about the Capitals' performance that year. If you insist I can remove it but it was used in the List of New Jersey Devils seasons and I rather like the format. -- Nomader (Talk) 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean isn't there a "List of NHL seasons" or a template you can use instead? Sandman888 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, yeah there is: List of NHL seasons. I'll go ahead and remove that column and put that under a "see also" section. Sorry about the confusion. -- Nomader (Talk) 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Did someone mention the Rangers season list I worked on? :-) Who better than the nominator of that list to review this one? First, I do think Hockey-Reference is reliable; it has passed muster in featured article candidate source reviews in the recent past. Of course, that doesn't mean it has to be used; HockeyDB.com is fine as well. More specific points:
  • En dashes are needed for a few of the linked seasons in the lead.
    • Looks like the links actually linked in the first part with en dashes but just used the "-"'s for the part that showed to the reader. Weird mistake on my part-- I went ahead and fixed them up.
  • Comma should be used in the number 1200 toward the end of the first paragraph.
    • Fixed.
  • "The team set records in their inaugural season for their lackluster record." Some redundancy in the writing regarding "records" and "record". Would "performance" work for the second one.
    • Good suggestion, I went ahead and changed it.
  • "The Capitals won the Eastern conference...". Capitalize Conference?
    • Changed.
  • Reference 4 makes no mention of the Capitals drafting Ovechkin in 2004.
    • I added in another reference which mentions both his draft and his recent importance to the team.
  • Decapitalize Key in the Table Key heading, since it is not a proper noun.
    • Done.
  • Bolding is becoming discouraged as a way of highlighting items in tables. I know it isn't being used now, but it is listed in the key, and there's always the possibility that the Capitals could win the Stanley Cup in the near-future. I would recommend using italics to identify a potential Cup win instead.
    • I went ahead and changed it in the key.
      • If I may make one more suggestion, I think it would be better if italics was in alphabetical order in the key. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alphabetized per your suggestion. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 6 doesn't mention the Capitals at all.
    • I don't think it needs to-- the Capitals are part of the NHL, and the source adequately explains why the amount of games changed from the prior season. If you think that's not sufficient though I'll go and see if I can wrangle something up.
      • The reference number may have changed when you added the Ovechkin cite. The one I meant to refer to is current reference 7, which cites the note on the realignment. That reference doesn't mention the Capitals, though it can be used to cite the general fact that there was a change in the system. To cite the Capitals' placing in the Atlantic Division, you could use this Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the reference-- I added it into the note. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 1 needs an access date, along with a note that it is a PDF file. To do the latter, use the format= parameter of the cite templates.
    • Added both. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see the access date. Is the formatting correct? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoops. I wrote the parameter as "accesdate", not "accessdate". I changed the minor spelling error. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 6, 7 and 11 should have the publishers in italics, since they are all printed publications. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I wasn't familiar with the "cite news" template. Looks like it automatically italicizes for you-- I went ahead and fixed it up so it's italicized now.
  • One more thing I just saw now: The totals are misaligned, as each row is one column right of where it is intended to be. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops-- looks like I accidentally shifted all the columns over when I deleted one earlier. I'll see what I can do, gimme a sec here... -- Nomader (Talk) 03:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went ahead and corrected the OT column of the chart, for some reason the totals were incredibly off. Otherwise I don't see the problem you were referring to. Do you see any other totals that are incorrect? -- Nomader (Talk) 03:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Not sure either caption needs a period.
    • Removed the period from both captions.
  • "qualified for the Stanley Cup playoffs 21 times and have never won a Stanley Cup...." "and" seems a little odd here. Maybe "but"?
    • Changed to "but", I think it works better.
  • "The team set records in their inaugural season for their lackluster performance.[2] " discuss and quantify this please.
    • They have the worst all-time NHL record with 70+ games, and they were just rather horrible. I'll dig around tonight when I get the chance for more specific sources. Here's the team page on Wikipedia, unfortunately mostly not sourced. It gives you an idea though about how awful they were.
      • I specified about their record. -- Nomader (Talk) 13:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and qualified for the playoffs for 14 straight seasons" for the next 14 seasons from their first qualification? it's unclear.
    • I understand what you meant: I changed it to "... and qualified for the playoffs for 13 more seasons in a row afterwards." I'm not really a fan of what I changed it to, but I'll see what I can work with when I get back from dinner tonight.
      • I reviewed it today but I can't really think of any better way to put it. Let me know what you think. -- Nomader (Talk) 13:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for 4 of their next 5 seasons" - four of their next five...
    • Switched to the words.
  • I'd prefer to see the totals comma-separated for thousands.
    • I added commas to all thousands-place numbers.
  • Note g needs an en-dash, not a hyphen. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a very indepth list of the overall seasons with all of the FL criteria met.BLUEDOGTN 17:01, 5 July 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/List_of_Washington_Capitals_seasons/archive1&oldid=1089078135"