Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers

[edit]

List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saved this article from deletion, took it to WP:DYK, and now I think it is ready for WP:FLC. Please bear with me, this is my first nomination in a long time, so if I missed something simple, I apologize. Thanks for taking the time to review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe in QPQ at FLC. I will review 3 noms for every one I nominate (1, 2, 3). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*The WP:LEAD is very long – too long for a lead section. The details about the players whose numbers were retired should be moved to the body, and a briefer summary should be added to the lead instead.
  • I haven't done a proper source check, but the WP:LEAD contains a fairly large number of sentences that are not followed by an inline citation. Do the references generally verify all the sentences following the last citation, or are there unsourced statements?
    • Yes they do. The only sentences that lack a source are the last few sentences of the first paragraph, explaining that teams retire numbers. The sentences, in my opinion, are backed up by the substance of the list and the sources that show the Packers retire numbers. Let me know what you think. I haven't been able to find a source that generically says teams retire numbers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the alt text that reads "A photo of Reggie White and other unknown Packers players with former president Bill Clinton", I would remove the word "unknown". The players are presumably not unknown even if they haven't been identified in this particular photograph, and their identities aren't relevant in this context anyway.
  • I would place the photos of the players to the right of the table, rather than below it.
  • The link in reference 22 (as of my writing this) is defunct. The intended link seems to be this one.
  • My main issue: as of right now, I don't think this passes WP:FLCR 3(b). Specifically, I think this could "reasonably be included as part of a related article".
    • Note that this article was nominated for deletion for that very same reason and the ultimate outcome was to keep it. I feel like this discussion comes up a lot with shorter lists. In my opinion, this article provides a lot more information than what would be necessary for a larger, summary article (such as Green Bay Packers or History of the Green Bay Packers). If someone added this much info to those articles, I would cut it down significantly per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Hope that helps, thanks for the review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw the AfD and gave the arguments presented a cursory read-through. After a second, more thorough read-through I stand by my assessment that the list currently does not meet WP:FLCR 3(b). I agree that this level of detail would be excessive for a larger article, but the list reasonably could be included in one (which is not to say that it should, just as the result of the AfD wasn't "keep" but "no consensus"). In other words, trimming and merging would be a reasonable option right now. What I feel is missing is information that could not reasonably be included in a larger article and the loss of which would be clearly detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. The "why" would almost certainly fit that bill, but I fear that it might be difficult to source. TompaDompa (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If and when these issues have been addressed, I'll do a more thorough review. TompaDompa (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some things needing copyediting:

TompaDompa (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again TompaDompa for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, first though, thanks for your QPQ approach, and especially such a generous one.
  • " in 1919, over 1,600 " never liked those easter egg links to seasons (especially when this is the only one I think), and "more than" rather than "over".
  • "Of those 30 Hall of Famers," no need to repeat "Hall of Famers".
  • "30 Hall of Famers, only six " 30/6 or "thirty/six" per MOSNUM.
  • And why "only"?
  • Shouldn't the link used for "retire uniform numbers" be in the previous sentence when the phrase ("uniform numbers officially retired") is first used?
  • "the criteria and necessity of " missing "for" after "criteria".
  • "so is usually left up to each team" usually?
  • "unofficial recognition occurred in 1952" probably "took place", and any details on this?
  • "Over 16 season, " missing an s.
  • Ref should be Refs.
  • Year ranges need whole years now (per MOS).
  • "first-team All-Pro " is mentioned in the lead and the table a few times but not linked nor explained.
  • Chicago Tribune is a work so should be italicised.
  • As is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
  • Most of the works/publishers are linked, but not all, be consistent.
  • The Guardian is a work too.

That's all I have on that quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • "the criteria for and necessity of doing so is left up to each team" => "the criteria for and necessity of doing so are left up to each team"
    • "His number was retired by coach Gene Ronzani during a brief ceremony in a game against the New York Yanks" - was the ceremony literally during the game?
    • Ice Bowl should be in quotation marks, not italics
    • "Nitschke's number was retired in 1983 in a small ceremony during a game against the Chicago Bears" - as above - was it literally "during" the game?
    • "White, who was known as the Minister of Defense" - nickname should be in quote marks, not italics
  • Think that's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (I also archived all references); promoting. --PresN 01:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_Green_Bay_Packers_retired_numbers/archive1&oldid=1086102561"