Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award/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 22:57, 20 January 2010 [1].

Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award[edit]

Nominator(s): Mm40 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

The second-to-last topic in WP:BASEBALL's featured topic drives for award. I have two concerns with the article. The first is the tie for the 1979 NL award; I was trying to use colspan, but according to Help:Sorting, that doesn't work. Additionally, I'm not sure if the lead is long enough, but I can expand it if need be. I hope this doesn't die due to a lack of reviews. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from KV5
;Comments from KV5
  • "first commissioner of MLB" - first MLB commissioner
    Done.
  • "at two difference positions" - different
    Fixed.
  • Suggest either removing "year in baseball" links in prose since they duplicate information in the tables. Also, {{by}} links throughout should be changed to {{mlby}}, since the Major League Baseball season pages provide more context.
    I can't find anymore "year in baseball links" in the prose; I fixed them just after I initiated this, so you might have seen the old version. Also, changed the {{by}} templates using AWB.
  • "in the Majors" - in Major League Baseball
    Done.
  • "widely disliked Ty Cobb" - widely-disliked; it's a compound adjective here
    Done.
  • For the 1979 issue, I would put Don Baylor in one cell as shown, then leave the other blank with centered em-dashes.
    Done, put the dashes in the second cell.
  • There are a lot of active National League players who aren't marked as "active".
    Not sure how I missed those; maybe as a Mets fan I'd just like to think Howard and Rollins are retired.
  • Remove fixed image widths to allow users' preferences to set the size of the thumbnails based on their resolution (except the lead image).
    Removed.
  • Remove the section links from the header of the navbox so that it's obvious that they link to this article (link should bold out on this article).
    Done.
  • Team links in the table should, I believe, go to the franchise, not to history pages, to be consistent with all of the other articles in the series.
    I did it this way because I feel it would be more useful to the reader to be able to read about the team the winners played for, not the current incarnation of the franchise, some of which don't have history sections. An example is Oakland Athletics, which has nothing in the History section, so a link there from "Philadelphia Athletics" wouldn't be very useful. If you still think so, I'll change it though.
    I think that's more a weakness of those particular articles rather than this one, so I still think they should go to the franchise pages. I'll drop a note on the talk page of the Athletics page so that maybe some editors who visit/edit that page regularly can talk about incorporating some history into the main page. Or maybe I'll just do it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, changed them.

Great work, Mm40! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now we just need Starx to finish WS champs. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold
*Comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 15:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ruth and Foxx images are lacking alt text.
  • You caught me just as I was adding more images and finishing alt text.
  • There are 4 disambig links that the FLC tool will show you (Bob Elliot, bunt, Larry Doyle, Texas Rangers).
  • That's odd, they weren't there this morning. Fixed.
  • I think the lead could use expansion. Precisely how many did each of those IF positions win? Foxx was the first to win multiples. DEFINITELY mention the 1979 shared award. Etc, etc, etc.
  • Done, is that enough? Now three decent-sized paragraphs.
  • "The award's only tie occurred in 1979 when Keith Hernandez and Willie Stargell both received 216 points." - in which league? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specified. By the way, can your resolved comments be considered a support? Mm40 (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken to waiting for most comments to be resolved before stating a support. There have been some instances where I've supported lists after finding 3 or 4 mistakes only to come back and find that other reviewers have found 25 or 30 things that I missed. Since the resolution of comments is given more weight than a declaration of support anyway, I usually wait to see the comments that other users make, and if they are resolved as well, before supporting or opposing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the League Award needs quite a bit more citing. The rule about one-win-per-player is completely uncited.
  • The entire section is cited to Gammons and Palmer; if you can find some more sources, I'd gladly incorporate them.

How does it look now. I realize there are a few missing symbols, I'm adding them now. Mm40 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the above issues resolved. Mm40 (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only problem I have is that all of the content is under a single header. As the title says the list is about award winners, it is unnecessary to have a header saying the entire article is about award winners. Make the current subsections top-level sections. Reywas92Talk 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mm40 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • First feel is (as a non-baseball expert), why divide the tables? I could easily see a lead which merges that good info into one and allows us to sort all the winners against each other rather than three sets of winners. Not a big deal though.
  • Because there are three different awards presented by three different organizations in three different time periods, though they were all presented for the same purpose: identifying the Most Valuable Player. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in each league" how many leagues are there in MLB? Non-experts may not know...
  • "both received 216 points" - but we don't know how we got there - what's the scoring system?
  • Good point. I've moved the exact amount of points down to footnote [c], which the reader will presumably read after the description of the scoring system. Better? Mm40 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • baseballevolution.com - a reliable source (even though it's just an EL?)

The Rambling Man (talk)

  • Considering the link to their "About Us" page is broken, I'd assume not. Removed. Mm40 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Comma after "first MLB commissioner".
    Added.
  • "The award's only tie occurred the National League in 1979". Missing "in".
    Fixed.
  • Next sentence starts with a number, 17. It would be better if this was worded to avoid the number beginning the sentence.
    How's it sound now?
  • Chalmers Award: Remove hyphen in "widely-disliked"?
    It was suggested by KV5 because it's a compound adjective; I'm keeping it with the hyphen for now, but I'm not sure.
  • League Awards: Do your sources contain anything on how the NL award was established? Not vital by any means, but it would be nice to know if avaliable.
    I couldn't find anything on establishment (although I'm going to look more later), but I did find other info. Tell me how it sounds.
  • BBWAA MVP: redundancy in the first sentence: "The BBWAA first awarded the modern MVP award...". Award...award...
    Fixed.
  • Footnote c: "Hernandez and Stargell both received the 216 points in the 1979 voting." Remove first "the" to make it tighter? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not tighter, grammatically correct. Fixed. Mm40 (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another top-quality list, like the other MLB awards lists that have come through here lately. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - what Giants said. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Detroit Tigers' widely disliked Ty Cobb" Can you source "widely disliked" (and is it even necessary)? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources added. I think it may serve as reasoning for a prise being awarded to both players; Chalmers wouldn't give the award only to an unpopular player. Mm40 (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is it possible to place tot he Barry Bonds picture actually in the Key section? it seems a bit out of place hovering next to the Table of Contents, it might not even need a fix its just personal curiosity as to why its placed there. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 10:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mm40 (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have nothing now standing out which concerns me. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 12:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well done...Modernist (talk) 23:03, 20 January 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/Major_League_Baseball_Most_Valuable_Player_Award/archive1&oldid=1147974721"