Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies seasons

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 19:04, 4 May 2008.

Philadelphia Phillies seasons

[edit]

I am self-nominating this list for featured status because I believe that it meets all of the criteria necessary to named as such. It has been peer reviewed once and the concerns that were raised have been addressed. I have had some help with the citations and have learned a lot from putting this list together as well. I am willing to address any concerns that are raised. Thanks for your consideration. Killervogel5 (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hi Killervogel5, some comments...

  • No need for the see also template, you link to the team in the lead.
Green tickYRemoved the see-also link. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed links added by Mitico. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "completed seasons" but the current season is in the table. Remove the current season.
Green tickYAltered the lead to include season being played currently (I did not add completed seasons originally; it was copied from another article by Mitico). Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use en-dash, per WP:DASH, to separate number ranges such as 22–38 (instead of the hyphen which looks like 22-38).
Green tickYHyphens replaced with en-dashes. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move citations to immediately follow punctuation per WP:CITE.
Green tickYCitations moved. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular Season in the table can just be Regular season.
Green tickYI changed this, but I believe it to be more aesthetically pleasing the other way (see St. Louis Cardinals seasons). Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a real shame the colspans are in there because without them you could make the table sortable. Not a dealbreaker but something to consider.
I thought long and hard about removing them, because I really wanted this table to be sortable, but in the end, I stuck with the convention of the above St. Louis featured list. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need a key for GB.
I don't know what you mean by this. Could you clarify? Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to explain to non-expert readers what GB means. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood. It's keyed in the reference against "regular season," which explains each statistic. Green tickYKillervogel5 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "4-1" -again use the en-dash.
Green tickYEn-dashes added. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MVP needs explanation. As does CYA, and MOY. And NLCS and NLDS.
What would you suggest? I could put it in footnotes, but the list gets very unstreamlined if I write it out in the table itself. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add a key to explain what these mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickYKeyed in references. Killervogel5 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for full stops in the table.
I don't know what exactly a full stop is; could you explain? Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant no need for the periods. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickYRemoved. Killervogel5 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. A lot of these changes were added by someone else and I just didn't remove them yet. It's something I can address later this afternoon. Killervogel5 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments Just a couple of points

  • The colours in the key (for World Series Champions, National League Champions, Division Champions and Wild Card Berth) are a bit clashy, and aren't standardised to other "Team name seasons" pages.
I know the colors aren't standardized, but I thought it might be better to represent the team with the colors instead of colors that don't really mean anything. I could really go either way. Killervogel5 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickYColors now standardized. Killervogel5 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should it be "postseason" or "post-season"? I don't know which is correct, but I've seen more of the latter.
Both spellings are correct. Killervogel5 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Usually, the spelling "postseason" is used when the noun stands alone. The "post-season" spelling is more common in terms of "post-season (i.e., after-season) play." Since the latter usage occurs in the lead, I have changed that spelling to reflect this. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second addendum: After further consideration, my brain wants it to be the same in the lead and the table, so who am I to argue with my own mind? I'll utilize the hyphenated spelling because it is the one featured in the article that the link goes to. Killervogel5 (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference ten should be turned into a Key table, like other seasons pages.
Green tickYThe keys that I see on other pages always have looked out of place. Obviously as an encyclopedia, the point is to get across the proper information, but I still think the aesthetics of it are important. Killervogel5 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have moved the keys into footnotes instead of references so that they are done properly. I am going to separate them out into individual footnotes later today. KV5 (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Now individual footnotes for each award and necessary column. KV5 (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's it from me. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of "MOY stands for Manager of the Year", I would just do "MOY = Manager of the Year"
  • Footnotes J, K and L could do with being cited.

Other than that, unfortunately I'm only able to give a neutral vote. I'm moving tomorrow and won't have internet access until around May 14, so I can't come back to see if these have been resolved or how other people's comments are resolved. Sorry. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Peanut4
  • Support All my comments have been addressed and the list now looks in ship-shape condition. The only improvement I could suggest now is to split the notes into footnotes and citations/references as can be seen at another current FLC, List of Houston Rockets first and second-round draft picks. Good work. Peanut4 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments from MeegsC

    • According to WP:MOS, the use of color coding without some additional symbol is not advised. ("Using color alone to convey information (color coding) should not be done. This is not accessible to people with color blindness (especially monochromacy), on black-and-white printouts, on older computer displays with fewer colors, on monochrome displays (PDAs, cell phones), and so on.")
      • This color coding is done to mimic the style of other featured lists (i.e., St. Louis Cardinals seasons); I can't really see another way to mark them, since all of the information is already written out. The color is just to draw an eye; it's not the sole means of information conveyance. I also added some extra highlighting by bolding the playoff years and the "Won/Lost" in the postseason field. Killervogel5 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a reason you use the bright red and white headers in the table rather than the more subdued maroon and white colors that are on the Phillies template box? The latter are a lot less glaring! MeegsC | Talk 09:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason is because the maroon color no longer reflects the Phillies. Their colors have nothing to do with maroon; they are red and blue. I felt it was more appropriate to stick with that color. In addition, the red used in the table is much closer to the red in the Phillies players template. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from Struway2
    • In the lead, several of your links are redirects (East Division links to National League East Division which redirects to National League East, post-season > playoffs > playoff, professional sports team > professional sports). Next time you edit the article, you may want to pipe those links to bypass the redirects.
    • Some of your citations are missing author or date information (currently ##2, 9, 11, 26, 28)
    • Citation #10 should use a relevant citation template for consistency.
    • You're inconsistent with date formats in your citations. With the accessdate parameter, most use ISO format as per the template documentation but ##26-28 use US format. With the publication date, ##2-4 use international (day first) format but #6 has US format; if you don't want to use ISO format for those, then US format would be more appropriate, and consistent with usage in the rest of the article.
    • Citation #26 goes to a collaborative wiki. Can you find a more obviously reliable source than that?
      • I would assume you mean citation 27, since 26 is an obviously reputable source (ESPN). I've replaced it. Green tickY KV5 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did indeed mean 27, sorry.

    think that's all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I've had a proper look at the references now, and will try harder to get the numbers right.[reply]

    Ref. 2 has an incorrect date (should be the date you have on #3), and the publication date is in international (day first) format.
    Ref. 6 is absolutely fine and has the publication date in US (month first) format, which I'd say is more appropriate for an article about a US subject. (If you can't see any difference between the two, turn off your date preferences at the "my preferences" tab at the top.)
    Ref. 9 is missing the publication date.
    Ref. 11 likewise (it's in the URL).
    Ref. 26 is missing author and publication date (the year is 2002, it's very unhelpful of ESPN putting day/month but no year at the top of the article, but if you click on Joe Morgan Archive on the right of the page and go through there, you come to it...). Also, this citation has the accessdate in US date format, unlike ##1-25 which use ISO as per template documentation.
    Ref. 27 I don't think actually references the Division Series thing, perhaps this or this might do?
    Ref. 28 is missing author and publication date (it's in the URL), and has US-format accessdate.

    If you'd like me to go through and edit them myself, I'm quite happy to do so; it would have been quicker than typing out all this stuff :-) but I didn't want to risk edit conflicts or getting in your way. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, not at all. You're welcome to join in the editing, or not; either way is fine. I'm actually at work right now, so my time at the computer is sporadic. I appreciate your comments. KV5 (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really need the small font in your colour key? That size is difficult enough to read even at high-contrast, but the National League (particularly) and the Wild Card boxes are problematic. I've tried it at the same font size as you use in the table and it doesn't make the colour key excessively wide.
    • Ref. 28 thanks for correcting my failed attempt at adding a properly-formatted publication date.
    • One more thing (hopefully just the one). In the lead, it says The franchise was also the first professional sports team in American history to reach 10,000 losses during the 2007 season. Although no-one in their right mind would believe they'd lost 10,000 times during the 2007 season, perhaps it might read better turned round to something like During the 2007 season, the franchise became the first ... to reach 10,000 losses. Struway2 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    only one remaining is:

    Support The list simultaneously satisfies both FL criteria 1.a.1 (bringing together existing 'yyyy Philadelphia Phillies season' articles) and 1.a.2 (timeline of Phillies history). The lead provides a decent introduction, both it and the table are well referenced, and there is a free-use image. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks for your help, your kind words, and your support; a tip of the cap to you. KV5 (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Excellent work :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 13:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks from myself and WP:PHILLIES. KV5 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2008 (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/Philadelphia_Phillies_seasons&oldid=1126722117"