Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mark of the Year/archive1

Add links
Source: 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 not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:26, 11 October 2008 [1].

Mark of the Year

I'm nominating this article, because I think it has reached FL status. This is what the article looked like prior to my working on it. Since then, I've re-written and reformatted most of the article, added relevant pics and template(s), and corrected POV and trivia sections. It was also peer reviewed. The article is now well referenced, comprehensive and aesthetically pleasing. If there are any minor issues remaining, I'd be willing to work on them, until the article reaches FL status. --Flewis(talk) 07:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This site is dedicated to covering the AFL season, together with various other competitions within the afl. All the info here is accurate and also verifiable (feel free to cross check with http://www.afl.com.au/ {official AFL website} if you have any more concerns with this source) --Flewis(talk) 02:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would probably be better to use the AFL site itself, no? That way you don't have concerns with possible bias, etc. on a self-published site. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if AFL maintains Mark of the Year history on its website. --Flewis(talk) 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This source asserts the following claim: "Many of the best marks in the VFL/AFL were featured in a VHS/DVD named Miracle Marks." If you check up the "about us" page [2], the website states that "The site is dedicated to Australian DVD news and reviews of Australian DVDs. It is updated on a daily basis." Along with: We have almost 930,000 page views per month, and around 2,840,000 hits per month (March 2008 figures). Surely, a 'phony' site would not be as popular with people looking for a reliable plot synopsis and review? --Flewis(talk) 02:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This website is listed with the 'Australian Business Directory' [3]. --Flewis(talk) 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • the various YouTube videos
According to
WP:YOUTUBE
, there is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page. All the videos linked in the article are verifiable per my personal knowledge, the name of the video, and the comments (e.g. "That's not Tony Modra!!" - that video would not be included in the article). The only other possible way to assert whether or not these video's are in fact video's of the particular event, would be to request another wiki user to cross check them.
The entire reason videos were included in the article, was to enhance the prospective reader's knowledge on the subject (just as pictures aid visually, so to with video). --Flewis(talk) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above about reliable sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Flewis(talk) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done what? Did it get replaced? With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footy stamps - Asserted as a reliable source in the Australian Footbal directory (Yahoo) [4] --Flewis(talk) 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Flewis(talk) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done what? Did it get replaced? With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the disclaimer: "The statistics on this website are based on the official AFL statistics: --Flewis(talk) 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Flewis(talk) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done what? Did it get replaced? With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site may seem worrisome because it has not much to do whatsoever with '
verifiability. --Flewis(talk) 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Done --Flewis(talk) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done what? Did it get replaced? With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site lists a bibliography here: [5] --Flewis(talk) 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 20 (2001 Mark of the year) is lacking a publisher
Done --Flewis(talk) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for current ref 22 (Past Mark's of the year..)
Done --Flewis(talk) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 34 (Nicky Winmar..) is lacking publisher
Done --Flewis(talk) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lists should be in
    earliest-to-latest chronological order.--Crzycheetah 21:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Done - Wikitable has been reformatted into earliest-latest chronological order --Flewis(talk) 02:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Flewis, in the future could you hold off on using the {{
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 06:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
 Done No just kidding. In the future I'll be sure to use: done --Flewis(talk) 12:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite ready A featured list is supposed to be the best of the best Wikipedia has to offer. Here are some problems:
  • The overall tone of the article is colloquial rather than formal. Featured content should be in a tone written for informing the audience, not entertaining it. This reads like a sports book for teenagers. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not the "professional standards of writing" I would expect from featured content. This is going to be the hardest of my objections to overcome, since just about every sentence of the lead will need to be tweaked.
I'm trying my best with this issue. So far I've re-written the prose--Flewis(talk) 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section needs better information. Why was there no award in 1971 or 1972? Exactly when did journalists help pick the award?
I'm afraid that I'm able to find absolutely no information on this whatsoever. Google yields few results and Google Book Search doesn't fare much better. I think some parts of this section may have to be removed if they cannot be verified.--Flewis(talk) 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have removed all the unreferenced material in the "Selection Process" Section --Flewis(talk) 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar and spelling errors like "Chris Tarrants mark" which should be "Chris Tarrant's mark" must all be identified and fixed before FL status is even considered. fixed
  • No redlinks. Redlinks should be delinked or the target article should be created. Featured content should not have redlinks for any length of time.
Done --Flewis(talk) 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Selection Process" should have 3 sections to mirror the history section. The reader should walk away with a high-level view of the selection process in the 70s/80s, the 80s/90s, and the current process. started a fix but expert needed - stub sections introduced
As above, my searches for
reliable sources have turned up fruitless. Parts of this section might also need to be removed --Flewis(talk) 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
See Above - unreferenced material removed. --Flewis(talk) 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement in the History section that "The current selection process was first used in the 1998 season" must be reconciled with the statement in the Selection Process section that "The system was modified slightly in 2006." Any other similar inconsistencies must be identified and fixed. fixed by rewording
  • The article contains terms and references unfamiliar with non-football fans and/or non-Australians. Sentences like "The Victorian Football League also runs in conjunction, but only selected from the few games that are televised each year on ABC2." make little sense to my non-Australian, non-football-watching brain. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this problem is, but it needs to be fixed.
I've added explanations and links to other wiki articles--Flewis(talk) 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some browsers, the pictures overlap the table if the window is too skinny. This may be a limitation of Wikipedia, but knowing this limit, it might make sense to move the pictures to other places within the article or reduce their number. On the other hand, their current placement and number may be the best option. If it is the best option available, then this is not a block to featured list status.
Default thumbnail size is now used --Flewis(talk) 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pictures should be in the same order as the list defaults to - currently oldest first. Done --Flewis(talk) 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using both colors and */#'s is unnecessary. Pick one. I'd go with the #/* because it is more friendly to blind and colorblind people. This is not a block to featured list status.
I used these together with symbols per
WP:MOS#COLORS --Flewis(talk) 06:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Consider using color or other separators every 5 or 10 entries, to make the table easier on the eyes. This is not a block to featured list status.
  • There are probably more things I could think of that I like and more things that I could think of that would block featured list status, but I only have so many hours in a day. I'll spend a few minutes doing some minor fixups, so some of the things above may be gone by the time you read this.
  • davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC) updated 00:09, 1 October 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/Mark_of_the_Year/archive1&oldid=1144863566"