Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Premier League Golden Glove/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 SchroCat 09:15, 20 July 2015 [1].

Premier League Golden Glove[edit]

Premier League Golden Glove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): NapHit (talk); Bloom6132 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since I have been here, but came across this list recently and was in good shape, so have just sprued it up and hopefully it now meets the criteria. Since I haven't been here in a while, I might not be up to date with certain style guidelines, so I apologise in advance if that is the case. Cheers NapHit (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Players" column doesn't sort properly; should sort by last name
Should be ok now, but for some reason the sorting keys aren't appearing on my screen on any article, so I'm not 100% if its fixed. NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why, but Čech isn't sorting properly. Seattle (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the sorting on Cech. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need an "Awards won by nationality" table if readers can just sort the "Winners" section by nationality? It's not as if hundreds have won the award?
I understand your point, but I think its just for quick reference for the reader. There are numerous other instances of this occurring in other Featured lists, although that obviously is not a fully refutable reason why they should stay, but an indication that there is a precedent. NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 needs "(Manchester City FC)", unless it's not published by (Manchester City FC)
done NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Ive removed the van der war image. NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originally, the Golden Glove could only be won outright by a single player. Should there have been a tie in the number of clean sheets, the goalkeeper with the superior clean sheets-to-games ratio received the award. can you combine these sentences with a semi-colon?
Done NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They established a new commercially independent league in order to negotiate "in order" can usually be cut wherever seen
Done NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the Golden Boot can you link "Golden Boot" somewhere?
Linked on first instance NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • presented at the end of the inaugural season,[4] and the Premier League Player of the Season award first bestowed the two seasons later. a bit too "season" heavy. Is "the" needed before "two seasons later"?
reworded NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, it took over a decade to elapse before the Premier League Golden Glove was first awarded in 2005, when Petr Čech received the inaugural award. → "In 2005, the Premier League Golden Glove was first awarded, with Petr Čech its inaugural recipient."
Done NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joe Hart has won the award on four occasions, the most times out of all keepers. not sure "times" is needed here
Done NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • During his streak, Van der Sar went 1,311 minutes... the third longest in the world after Mazarópi's 1,816 minutes. I'm not sure what this has to do with the award, mates. Seattle (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, I'd like a few more opinions first before I remove it. It does seem superfluous to the article. NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Seattle (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I'd cut out some of the detail on Van der Sar's record, I don't think it's relevant enough to merit that level of detail.
  • Might it be worth detailing the lowest number of clean sheets needed to win the award, similar to what's done at Premier League Golden Glove?
  • I'd note the season in which the current recipient won the award.
  • There's no need for the numbers in brackets to be in small text.
    • I was suggesting the text size be changed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, but I feel they are not necessary, so I removed them. NapHit (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain what the second general ref is there for? It doesn't make any mention of the award. Also the list of award winners in the first general ref only goes up to 2009; is there an alternative that lists all of them? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments @Mattythewhite: I've addressed them all. I've removed the second general ref and I can't find one that lists all the winners, but as they are individually sourced I feel this should be ok. NapHit (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3 does not support the content in the three sentences it references.
  • Neither ref 7 or 8 state that Čech won the first Golden Glove; replace ref 8 with ref 11. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • What's a clean sheet?
    • When a goalkeeper concedes no goals during a single match. NapHit (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was being a bit obscure with my concern here. This is an example of MOS:JARGON; in the US, for example, a "clean sheet" is something I might pull out of the washer after I launder my bedding. Since it is possible to explain this term in a few words, which you have just done, quite well, this defintion should be included in the article.
        • I've added this explanation into the article and have tried to reduce the number of times clean sheets is mentioned. NapHit (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "clean sheet" appears 7 times in the lead, including 4 times in the opening paragraph and twice in a single sentence. Is there some other way to phrase some of these?
    • Not really, this is how it is referred to in football, I wouldn't know what to substitute it for and I think it would actually confuse readers more. NapHit (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It makes for clunky reading.
  • Possibly unneccessarily piped link: [[English football league system|English football league]]. See MOS:NOPIPE, WP:NOTBROKEN.
  • In the same vein as above, I don't see the value in piped links for club names such as [[Manchester United F.C.|Manchester United]].
    • This is common practice in the WP:FOOTY project, clubs are shortened to remove the F.C. as it is not necessary to have the full name of the club in the article. I personally don't see this as an issue and as clubs are not referred to by their full names and in some cases just 'United', it would be odd to use the full name on every instance. NapHit (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two things: 1). I still don't see the value of doing it this way, however if you're following a project specific guideline here, please link to it. 2). Regardless, MOS:NOPIPE applies to Manchester United and Manchester City.
        • I actually can't find a guideline within the project about this, it's just the done thing it seems. Plus reading the MOS on piped links it states: "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link." I think its fairly clear what the reader is going to click on when they read this list given its nature, so I'm still reluctant to remove the pipes. I see no benefit to including the suffixs F.C., when its clear what the links link to and that the article is about football.
          • I agree the links are intuitive, that was never my concern. MOS:NOPIPE states "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits". So, within that guideline, if we want the text to say "Manchester United" then we should just link to Manchester United. As for hiding the F.C., we can agree to disagree.
            • That is a fair compromise, this should be done now. 15:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Image alts: check out WP:ALT, especially the Queen Elizabeth example.
    • Not really sure what your point is here. NapHit (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, NapHit I think they are trying to say that since this is not a fashion article it should not be "a man in a red uniform" just the way WP:ALT advises Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat". See this. -- Frankie talk 09:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. Is the image of Joe Hart included because a picture of "a man in a red uniform holding a ball" adds value to the article? No. The alt text needs to take the place of the image. "Joe Hart playing football" probably does the trick. Also for WP:ALT the daggers don't have alts.
          • Okie doke done this now and the daggers don't have alts. NapHit (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the second paragraph talks about peripheral subjects. What is the value of discussing the history of the Premier League, the Golden Boot, etc, within the context of this article?
    • Its providing context for the reader I feel. The part about the premier league is pertinent and this is the body that oversees the award. NapHit (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that explaining what the Premier League is adds value and is necessary. Might be worthwhile to have it in the opening paragraph, but if the lead flows better with it in the second paragraph, so be it. However, this isn't History of Premier League awards: the entire third sentence doesn't belong.
        • Ok I've removed the entire third sentence now. NapHit (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • General reference has unclear purpose and value. Only lists five winners: if there are no other sources for any of those five, should be used as a specific ref for each as necessary. Rejectwater (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed general ref, as its not needed. NapHit (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Rejectwater: I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see my responses above. Rejectwater (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your fast responses to my concerns. Please see additional comments above. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Frankie talk
Comments
  • The publishers for references need to be linked on their first occurrences e.g. Sky Sports in ref. 2.
    • I don't think that is necessary, I think it's more personal preference whether you link in references. I tend not to. so I'll leave this. NapHit (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might use {{Tooltip}} for the table.
    • I'm not sure how to implement it into the table, I've never used it before. From what I gather, it seems to be used for abbreviations? I think the tables might be ok without it. NapHit (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the list looks good with the prose in great shape. I am not sure if you have ever reviewed a music list, but if possible have a look at my nomination. -- Frankie talk 09:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments @FrB.TG:, I've responded to both and yes I'll take a look at your list in due course, cheers. NapHit (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments from Harrias talk

Not much from me, this looks in pretty good shape.

  • The key states "Player (X)", "Name of the player and number of times they had won the award at that point (if more than one)", but it looks like you removed the number in brackets.
  • Is "§" an MOS:ACCESSible symbol?
  • As FrB.TG point out, the ALT text could be much simpler: for the purposes of this article, it is only really relevant that they are pictures of Hart and Cech playing football, not the specifics of what they are wearing. Harrias talk 13:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments @Harrias:, I've addressed your comments. NapHit (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that my minor concerns have now been dealt with. Nice work. Harrias talk 21:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The minor concerns I mentioned have all been resolved. -- Frankie talk 21:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

A few more things and then I imagine we can wrap this up unless others join in:

1) WP:NOSYMBOLS (part of MOS:ACCESS) says "Do not use unpronounceable symbols such as ♥ (a heart symbol); use images with alt text instead." I don't know if asterisks meet this guideline. Perhaps use another template with alt text such as double dagger, hash tag, up arrow, etc. Also the daggers would all need to have alt text as well (I mentioned this earlier but was very unclear).
I have no idea whether it is unpronounceable or not, so I've changed it to double dagger to be safe. NapHit (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, I'm not sure about the asterisk either. But, the daggers and the double daggers all need to have alt text.
According to the alt-viewer tool, they appear to have alt text as they are. I added alt to a few of them and there is no change in the alt viewer. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing WP:ALT text. Should be something like {{dagger|alt=multiple award winners in the same season}} and {{double dagger|alt=the club were Premier League champions in the same season}} Rejectwater (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done NapHit (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2) MOS:LEAD: the sentence beginning with "Originally consisting of 22 teams" seems to come from nowhere. As the third paragraph nicely summarizes individual accomplishments, why don't we use the second paragraph to talk about more "macro" stuff? Who the first and current recipients are is already discussed, so how about things like how many different players have won, representing how many different countries and how many different clubs, which club has the most awards, etc (since it's a young list and the number of winners is the same as the number of clubs I imagine it could be combined somehow like "Joe Hart of Manchester City has won the most awards.") There is a table for awards by nationality and another for awards by club, this should be summarized somehow in the lead.
I've re-jigged this now, should be along the lines of what you said. NapHit (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3) Why are the symbols in the table superscripted?
There's no particular reason, is this a problem? NapHit (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, just curious.
4) Wikilinks for nationality seems to be WP:OVERLINKING ("the names of major geographic features and locations").
Removed the links. NapHit (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of. Now the flags are links: use flagdeco instead of flagicon, or you can drop the flags entirely citing MOS:FLAG. Personally I like the flags, but they do draw the eye, which isn't necessarily a good thing. Rejectwater (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done NapHit (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Great list, well sourced, covers the topic completely. Rejectwater (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2015 (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/Premier_League_Golden_Glove/archive1&oldid=1138488575"