Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers/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 Dabomb87 17:38, 11 October 2010 [1].

List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers[edit]

List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rlendog, Wizardman 15:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all features list criteria. I thought I'd take a break from draft lists and look through some other ones when I saw that this list was already about 90% ready for FLC. I did the other 10% and here we are. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So what??? can somebody explain to me why do these articles exist here on wikipedia? This is such an in-universe article, with essentially zero outside relevance. It is a statistics (and in baseball the more statistics the better) that nobody outside of the sport sees any relevance. Let's make a comparison to soccer, and let's pick the team that is most probably the most well-known/familiar in the US: Manchester United. Why would anybody who is not a mega-fan care about the List of captains in the first match of the season of Manchester United? So what if they are the MVP of the team in the first day of the season? What does this show? Starting pitchers in the payoff or the final would be fine lists, but this is just plain stupid. I will go ahead and AfD this, and do expect a ton of baseball fans to probably snowball it. Nergaal (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a note, the AfD discussion that Nergaal has started can be found here. Nomader (Talk) 06:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the following major reasons:
  • the article does not explain well the importance of the of being the starting pitcher on the starting day to readers not familiar with the terminology
  • there is no indication of any "aftermath" of the choices; in other words yes, they were chosen, but how well did they do? were they chosen as MVPs for the season, or did they get any recognition for their status later in the season? Or the bet did not pay up for the team in the end? The only mention is with the five times they reached the series, but what happened in the other 100+ cases?
  • "decision" should be switched to outcome since nobody took the decision to assign W or L decision should be clearly explained as it appears to be a notable statistics
  • 2nd lead paragraph does not fit well within the scope of the title of the article

Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • To respond to your comments, I don't think the list should tell us about all the players' careers. The list notes exceptional circumstances in the lead, such as which pitchers were banned because of the Black Sox Scandal and which pitchers pitched during a world series season– I could maybe see noting Cy Young Award winners of a certain year (i.e. if someone was the starting pitcher in 1967 and then won the Cy Young that year), but that should be incorporated into the table and is only a minor addition. Otherwise, if the reader wants to know more about a particular player's career, they can open that player's article.
  • The second paragraph should stay as it tells the reader where the starting pitchers pitched at home. I think that's relevant enough to merit inclusion in the lead.
  • No decision is wikilinked on its first appearance, so the explanation is adequate. Nomader (Talk) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have (hopefully) addressed the first point, adding something about the significance about being the opening day pitcher. Point two I feel would make the lead too tangential, though I could see if any won the Cy Young Award that year; I wouldn't go beyond that. Point four I think fits, since showing records away and at home adds an extra layer to the significance of pitching on opening day (though it's difficult to explain). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decision" is a major statistics but it is not explained. Considering how notable the statistics is, it is most likely deserving a note in the lead. Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Nomader (Talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Obviously this won't be able to pass until the AfD is sorted out, so that should probably be taken care of. If the article is kept, here are some comments about it.
    • The AfD will (most likely) close in 6 days while the FLC runs for at least 10 days (9 days from now, but it'll probably take two weeks or more). I believe the AfD can be ignored at this point and the reviewing continue in the interim. Sandman888 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made that comment when nobody had yet commented on the AfD-- I figured if the article was deleted, then obviously it would be a problem for the list to attain FL status as it would no longer exist. No worries, I plan to carry out a review no matter what the current consensus was at that AfD. Nomader (Talk) 03:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you list the acronym for Major League Baseball when it's never again referred to as "MLB" in the lead or the list?
  • "The played at South Side Park" ---> "They played at South Side Park"
  • You should probably link to the Black Sox Scandal when you mention the throwing of the 1919 World Series.
  • I only had time for a passing glance, and I'll add more later when I get the chance. Nomader (Talk) 04:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An additional comment-- it might be better if the list explain what Opening Day is to those who aren't familiar with it. Maybe something towards the beginning of the lead, saying "Opening Day is the first game in a new baseball season", or something to the like in order to reign in confusion from those who aren't familiar with the sport. Nomader (Talk) 06:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'd add in a post that explains the significance of the opening day pitcher. Nomader (Talk) 18:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done sans the last point; looks like the AfD is finding that last point so I'll add that in shortly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You've explained why Opening Day is noteworthy, but not why being a starting pitcher on Opening Day is noteworthy. I hope other baseball editors will add their thoughts too. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed– the list is about Opening Day starting pitchers but doesn't mention anywhere why being a pitcher on Opening Day is any more special than being a pitcher on any other day of the season. I'd probably put one or two sentences into the first paragraph of the lead about why its notable. Nomader (Talk) 06:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Final note addressed re: significance. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My concerns have been addressed and I feel that the changes have also addressed Nergaal's concerns above. As such, I feel that I can support at this time– well done, Wizardman. Nomader (Talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It's a personal preference but I would merge the first two sentences, as it reads a little clunkily right now.
  • "Opening Day is when the first game of the new baseball season is played" this reads awkwardly to me. I agree it's important to specify what this means to us non-experts, but it would be slightly better if it was something like "The first game of the new baseball season is played on Opening Day..."
  • "or having the most Opening Day starts" making the most?
  • "Opening Day starts" is repeated several times in the third paragraph. Could you reword one or two of them, maybe "started Opening Day"? or "were Opening Day starting pitchers..."?
  • "s in throwing the 1919 World Series" is repeated verbatim in two consecutive sentences, would prefer more elegant prose here.
  • "in Toronto's history" in Toronto's or Blue Jays'?
  • "by a score of 9–5" do we need "by a score of"?
  • And perhaps just "Blue Jays won the game 9–5" because it's clear it was against the White Sox.
  • Consider making the key span two columns.
  • What is this "decision"? The lead makes no mention of it.
  • In the key, last three, worthwhile making it clear, White Sox advanced..., White Sox were American League champions, White Sox were World Series Champions, because the table is about individuals, not the whole team.
  • Final Score ->Final score.
  • Image widths seem all a little different from each other...
  • Final score column sorts oddly, 0–1 three times, then 0–12, then 0–2...
  • Is it stadium, ballpark or location?
  • Ref 14 has a couple of spare periods.
  • Ref 15 is missing publisher and any other info that could be available. In fact, that reference, could you show me how it's reliable?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments –

  • "The first game of the new baseball season is played on Opening Day." Yes, but Opening Day varies depending on which team it is. The teams don't all start on the same day. The sentence should reflect this in some way; perhaps "of a team's new baseball season" would work?
  • "is considered an honor, and is given to...". The whole sentence reads awkwardly because of this. "an honor, which is given to..." would be a suitable fix.
  • "Williams was also the Opening Day started in 1920." "started" → "starter". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No complaints from me. Courcelles 10:14, 6 October 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_Chicago_White_Sox_Opening_Day_starting_pitchers/archive1&oldid=1089080483"