Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2006 Major League Baseball season pitching leaders/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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:35, 29 June 2008 [1].

2006 Major League Baseball season pitching leaders[edit]

All "staty like" but appears to meet all criteria. Well referenced, and images all over the place - well illustrated. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Periods can be removed in the Key table because they are sentence fragments.

Gary King (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • WP:HEAD says "Games Started" - "Games started".
    • A merely neutral observation but why not "leading pitchers" rather than "pitching leaders"?
    • "PLAYER'" - why the added apostrophe? And why capitalised for real words?
    • Consider making each table sortable (you'd need to remove colspan for this but that's not a big issue on most if not all the tables).
      • Done. It looks decent on 1280X1024, but looks horrible on anything lower. I'm going to see if I can add the widths. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Torres image caption is complete sentence so add a period.
    • Baseball is probably not the most accurate categorisation - isn't there a baseball lists cat or similar?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Good work overall, but I have a couple questions and comments.
  • This season, the Atlanta Braves failed to qualify for the postseason for the first time since 1990. Does "This season" refer to the 2006 season or the current season? (It's obvious, but I can see somebody getting confused.)
  • The American League (AL) won All-Star Game for a fourth straight year; the AL won nine of the previous 10 contests (the 2002 game was a tie). Should it be "won *the* All-Star Game"?
  • Add non-breaking spaces.
    • Where exactly are they needed; there aren't any ndashes, compound expressions, or dates that nbsp's are used for. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the lead I see quite a few numbers. For example, The American League (AL) won the All-Star Game for a fourth straight year; the AL won nine of the previous 10 contests (the 2002 game was a tie). Not a big deal, though. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Team" in caps in the charts?
  • The image layout is weird. Is there a way to adjust the tables' width so the images aren't a skew?
    • See my above reply to TRM's comment #4, I'll have to ask him how to fix that. I made several test preview's (and edits for that matter, but none seem to work) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the page is well cited, and there's lots of pictures, which are nice. But looking at the tables, I think you've got things confused as to what constitutes a "leader" for pitching statistics. Zach Duke didn't lead the league in "hits against", he GAVE UP the most hits. Similarly, Zambrano gave up the most walks, and the same applies for runs and earned runs. These are ignominious leaders at best; no one wants to be known as the pitcher who gave up the most runs in a season, and that doesn't qualify him as a "leader". You need to find the people who gave up the LEAST hits/walks/runs/earned runs. Those are the best pitchers. Now obviously some pitcher who only appeared in one game will do pretty well here, but that's why there's a minimum innings pitched requirement for this stuff; it's like hitters who have minimum at-bat requirements. I don't wanna piss in your cereal but your statistics are backwards with respect to this stuff. I therefore oppose until the page has the proper leaders cited. THEN it will be correct. Unless you want to change this page to "Worst statistical pitchers for the 2006 season". Anthony Hit me up... 22:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this - please don't close the FLC until I'm done. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks pretty good. I have two big complaints though:

  • First, cumulative stats (so pretty much all of the number-based columns) are typically right-aligned. See the back of any baseball card for a good example.
    • Is this necessary? Per WP:MOS, things shouldn't be right aligned unless (I forgot the rest). And besides, we aren't looking at a baseball card.
      • I brought this issue up earlier on the FLC talk page (here). I didn't get much of a response (the discussion strayed), but what I did get seemed to agree with me. But please feel free to disagree with my proposal there. But, to respond directly: the baseball card analogy was just one example of sports-related statistics. Look at a box score for another example. No, we're not making baseball cards, but we are making something within the same realm, a realm which already has standards. I see no reason why Wikipedia should stray from those standards. Drewcifer (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second, on lower-resolution monitors (such as mine, 1024x768), the pictures really screw things up. There is not enough horizontal space to fit both the table and the pictures. See this picture
    • Ya, see my replies to Julian's and TRM's comments above. I've asked several people how to fix this (along with TRM) - none seem to know how. It looks fine on my computer, but that's only because I have a higher resolution. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if I have a good solution for you, but as it is the page is formatted very poorly for anyone viewing the page with lower resolutions. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but I remember some FLC regular with a web-design background mentioning that 1024x768 monitors are fairly prevalent. So this isn't something we can ignore. Drewcifer (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drewcifer (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • I asked Hersfold, who has been a help to me several times when it comes to formatting. I'm sure he'll be able to help this time as well. Let's wait for a reply. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It has, so far as I can tell, been fixed - each table and their associated images have been placed in invisible tables so as to force them to get along with each other. I've checked it in Firefox 2 and IE 6 at 1024x768 resolution, and it seems to work properly. I am unable to check in other browsers, however in my experience if it works in both of those browsers, it'll work in everything. This has made the formatting a bit ugly-ish, but I will leave details on the list's talk page on how to deal with this if needed. If something does go wrong with it, I'd suggest contacting someone else - I may not be able to respond in a timely manner. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 23:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Definitely looking better, but not perfect IMO. It appears that some of the tables are getting smooshed still, which means that similar columns between tables are of varying widths. Honestly I don't think the pictures add that much to the article, so I'd just scrap them compeltely if I were you. They seem like more of a hassle than they are worth. Also, there's still the issue of the column-alignment. Also the sort buttons don't all work. Also, for tied ranks, a blank cell shouldn't be used. Instead, maybe a "1*" or something like that. Because when you sort by another column, therefore taking the rank column out of whack, then we won't know what the blank cells mean anymore since their not preceeded by the right numbers. Drewcifer (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can deal with the slightly-awkward tables sizing, but the blank cells and the inappropriate column alignments are still problematic enough for me to oppose for now. Also, I'm inclined to approach this list much like 2000–01 National Basketball Association Eastern Conference playoff leaders (see my comments about too much statistics at it's FLC). Drewcifer (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Can you think of a more engaging opening sentence instead of repeating the article title?
  • Split the key table into two columns
  • Sortability on Players names and Teams doesn't work. They bring the top of the page back into view.
  • Image placement is messed up. Some are alongside the tables, others are above.
  • Is baseball-reference.com a reliable source?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Every table should be the same width, with each column the same width in each table.
  • Key section is taking up a lot of unnecessary space. Can it be split into four columns?
  • "This is a list of..." is a dis-engaging way to begin.. articles don't start with "This is an article about..."

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time, per my comments. Especially the sorting issue which seems to be a problem that can't easily be fixed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:24, 29 June 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/2006_Major_League_Baseball_season_pitching_leaders/archive1&oldid=1176477628"