Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of winners of the Amsterdam Marathon/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) 12:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of winners of the Amsterdam Marathon[edit]

List of winners of the Amsterdam Marathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Editør (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. The lead summarizes the content in the tables which have contemporary sources, except for the women's winners from 1976 and 1977 that are referenced with a 1990 source because I was unable to find sources from 1976/1977. Only the world best performance statement is not in the tables and is sourced separately. – Editør (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was incomplete, for the women's winners from 1996/1999/2000 I also couldn't find contemporary sources, so I've used the results in their World Athletics profile as source. – Editør (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment
  • Per MOS:COLOR, you can't use colour alone to signify something, and certainly not two shades of the same colour which are almost indistinguishable from each other -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've simplified the marking of the course record by merging the two markings. – Editør (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I don't think the added boldface is much of an improvement, neither would be adding a column to add notes, so I'm open to suggestions. – Editør (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The best thing to do would be to add a symbol, eg † or ‡ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'm considering some options, also adding the CR abbreviation normally used for marathon course records. Meanwhile, I have another question similarly related to accessibility, is it okay today 'hide' the dates under the years with a tooltip? – Editør (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've decided to remove the color markings altogether, because I believe the combination of color plus boldface gave undue visual weight to the course records and because I thought the addition of a symbol made the time listings look messy. Instead, I've added a narrow note column to mark the course records. – Editør (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've also removed the tooltips (that were hiding the full dates) for accessibility reasons. – Editør (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias – support[edit]

  • The lead needs to be expanded to give better context; how far is the marathon? Where in Amsterdam is the race, has it always covered the same route? Why was the race cancelled in 1978 and 2020? Compare this to List of winners of the Boston Marathon or List of winners of the New York City Marathon.
    I've added the distance and explained the cancellations. The route has not always been the same, sometimes the finish was at Dam Square (recognisable by the buildings on the photo of Gerard Nijboer finishing in 1984) and other times in the Olympic Stadium (you can see the tracks on the photo of Eyerusalem Kuma finishing). This sort of information is certainly relevant to the marathon and I think it should be discussed in more detail in Amsterdam Marathon (I have already started working on this article), but for this list I hope that "road race (...) across the city of Amsterdam" will suffice. – Editør (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality of the language in the lead needs to be improved, particularly to make the text flow. At the moment, it just reads like a series of bullet points.
    I've copyedited the text in an effort to improve its flow, and I will try to look at it some more later. – Editør (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made some additional changes and would like to know if this is (in the direction of) what you were looking for. – Editør (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tables should have table headers, see MOS:DTT.
    I assume you meant captions here, which I have just added, and not headers. It seems a bit overcomplete now, so I am not convinced it is an improvement. – Editør (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is titled "List of winners of the Amsterdam Marathon", the section is titled "Men's winners", and the table is captioned "Men's winners of the Amsterdam Marathon". What do you think? – Editør (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not lacking for width; might as well write "Course record" out in full, rather than abbreviate it.
    I disagree with this point about width, in smaller windows and on smaller screens the table rows already don't fit on a single line. – Editør (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And CR is the common athletics abbreviation for a marathon course record, according to Athletics abbreviations#Records. – Editør (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also mentioned the abbreviaton in the lead to further explain it. – Editør (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Athlete" column should sort by surname.
    Changed. – Editør (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Country" column doesn't need links to each country, per MOS:OVERLINK.
    In the lead I have only linked the country names once, but I don't think that would work as well in a sortable table. Some lists link all (like List of winners of the New York City Marathon) others don't (like List of winners of the Boston Marathon), so this suggests it is more something of preference. I think some country links are useful and for consistency I prefer that they are all linked. – Editør (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images all need alt text.
    Added. – Editør (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Amsterdam Marathon statistics (https://do.occdn.net/p/75/f/statistieken-am-word-23-ned-eng.pdf here) Marianne Nieuwenhuis was the female winner in 1979?
    I've found two sources from 1979 that rank Ria Harmens first and Marianne Nieuwenhuis second. The first source is a news report in Het Parool of 21 May 1979, you can see both names at bottom left of the page, but unfortunately the time of Harmens is not visible due to the fold of the scanned page. The second source is this result booklet from 1979, which I found on the website of the Stichting Atletiekerfgoed (Athletics Heritage Foundation), it lists the results of both runners on the last page. I've also found a 1990 article in Het Parool that lists Marianne Nieuwenhuis as winner, but I have no evidence that indicates the original reporting was wrong or the results were changed, and without further evidence I have made the assumption that some of the later sources have copied it incorrectly. – Editør (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional note: in the 1979 article in Het Parool, the overall rankings are given for Harmens and Nieuwenhuis, #199 and #204, maybe the way the women's top results were documented as part of a long result list has played an obfuscating role here. The layout of the PDF document you linked suggests it is an official document from the organisation, although the source location doesn't indicate who has published it. But seems odd that the organisation would list the wrong winner. – Editør (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article I linked came from the official marathon website. The ARRS also list Nieuwenhuis as the race winner: [2]. Without clarity on this issue, we can't really proceed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to rely on the organisation's all-time winner list, that's why I've made a point of finding as many contemporary sources for the winners as I could, but this doesn't seem to satisfy you. Do you have a suggestion of how to resolve this matter? – Editør (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only real resolution can be to carry out further research and find out which is correct. At the moment we have contemporary primary sources suggesting one winner, and non-contemporary primary and secondary sources supporting another. Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will try to find out, but in this case I'm not sure how to carry out further research without doing OR. – Editør (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I would start off with OR, in this case probably emailing the organiser, to see if you can find out the reason for the discrepancy. From there it is easier to work backwards and find RS to support that information. While we can't use OR on Wikipedia, we can often use OR to help us search for the right information. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, an approach that may work, but I'm not sure that contacting publishers, pointing out discrepancies between sources, and potentially influencing their content is the manner in which Wikipedia authors are supposed to work.
    Earlier you mentioned primary and secondary sources, which lead me to review WP:OR. In this context I will again describe the sources and their content and why I think that the 1979 women's winner is appropriately listed, given the available information.
So it seems to me that the 1979 sources are to be preferred over the newer ones and that Ria Harmens should be listed as winner based on the available information. – Editør (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to explain why I believe the 1979 sources are to be preferred over the later sources. And I have just added a detailed note to the list that discusses the 1979 and later sources and acknowledges that they indicate different winners. I hope that this resolves the issue in a manner suitable to Wikipedia without having to do original research. – Editør (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Harrias, I believe I have addressed all your comments and concerns about the list, do you now support the candidate? – Editør (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Harrias, because I haven't heard back, I wanted to remind you of our discussion. – Editør (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I will respond to them above. – Editør (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this commenter has not responded in the last two months, but I believe I've adressed all the raised issues. – Editør (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – sorry, for some reason I didn't see the pings for this page. I'm happy with the note that has been added to address the ambiguity I was concerned with. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I didn't do the ping right, but I'm glad to hear you support the candidate! – Editør (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Z1720
  • Reviewed the prose and had no concerns.
  • I was a little iffy on the lack of inline citations in the lede. However, I think most of the information in the lede is cited in the article body and I didn't detect any information that wasn't. I'm OK with it but will understand if others are concerned and want them added.
    Yes, the lead summarizes the tables, so I believe most info is covered by the source references in the tables. Only the world best performance wasn't so I added an extra reference for that. – Editør (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewed the images, had no concerns with copyright, captions or alt text
  • Notes 1 and 2 do not have citations: recommend adding those after the notes (even though I know they are already in the table)
    I've added (duplicate) source references to the notes themselves. – Editør (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend archiving the sources using IA Bot
    I will leave this to someone else if they think it is necessary. – Editør (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and comments, I will reply to them above where appropriate. – Editør (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – All of the reference appear reliable enough, and formatting looks to be okay throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:11, 14 January 2024 (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_winners_of_the_Amsterdam_Marathon/archive1&oldid=1195579629"