Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Detroit Red Wings seasons/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 Hahc21 10:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Detroit Red Wings seasons

List of Detroit Red Wings seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Detroit Red Wings seasons/archive1

Nominator(s): Rejectwater (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Detroit Red Wings are one of the oldest and most accomplished teams in the National Hockey League; this list chronicles their achievements season by season. From the thrill of victory to the agony of defeat it is all right here for your reading pleasure. It recently went through a substantive peer review featuring comments from several users, all of which I believe have been addressed (however I made no response and took no action on the comment regarding alt texts as I did not feel any action was necessary). I look forward to reading your comments and acting on your recommendations. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments "of the Original Six teams of the NHL" not sure you need "teams of the NHL" here since it's linked and it repeats NHL. I changed it to "teams of the league". Stopping at "Original Six" felt too short. Rejectwater (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "a four game sweep" shouldn't that be "a four-game sweep"? Done. Rejectwater (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Lost Semifinals to Toronto Maple Leafs, 1–4 [19]" avoid spaces before references. There are several of these. Done. Rejectwater (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 18509, we'd normally represent that as 18,509. Done. Rejectwater (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Consider repeating the table heading at the footer, as it's a long way to scroll up to find out what occurred 18509 times. True. I added it to the bottom without any links. Makes it easier to understand the regular table cells at the bottom as well. Rejectwater (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Good list overall, well cited, and seems to meet the technical qualifications. One minor quibble that I would like addressed, even though I'm supporting it - no citations in the lead at all. I know most of the information is found and cited below, but there's nothing to cite the Original Six claim, for example. I guess I'm just used to seeing citations in the lead, even if they're repeated below. Everything else is up to par though. Anthony (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have added a source for the Original Six. Everything else, I believe, is as you said, found and cited below. Please let me know if you think anything else in the lead should be cited. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks good now. Anthony (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your input, kind words, and support. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support Disturbingly, I can find nothing to really comment on for this. There are a few language tweaks that I could suggest, but I suspect that they are mostly BR/AM English variations, and what is there certainly reads well enough for me. Well done! Harrias ^talk 09:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. Thank you for your kind words and support. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed and nothing more to report other than a good list! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your input, kind words, and support. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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