- 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 17:31, 16 January 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): WFCforLife (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I felt it was about time I pulled my finger out and did some work on a list. I'm nominating this list for FLC as part of the WP:SOUNDERS drive towards a featured topic. While I'm not exactly sure which articles such a young club would need to include in a topic, it's pretty clear that this one would be part of it. I think I've learnt from my last FLC, so hopefully this one will involve less work. For what it's worth, I'm in the wikicup. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comments from KV5
This list is great work. The only thing that I might like to see is the key moved into a table, but it's not a deal-breaker. Extremely well-done. Support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I experimented with a table for a similar key a while back, but I couldn't get one that I was happy with. I've split it into columns now, which hopefully does the job. WFCforLife (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
|
Comments from The Rambling Man
- " and began playing competitive " this is a touch confusing because we've lost the subject - you've mentioned the city of Seattle since mentioning the club.
- soccer or football - pick one and stick with it I would suggest.
- Fixed. Old habits stick, but the s-word is clearly more appropriate.
- "The current Sounders FC is a distinct entity to both of these clubs" I think I understand what you're saying, but perhaps "an entity distinct to..." would be better?
- "... three goalkeepers. Goalkeeper Kasey ..." quick repeat of goalkeeper.
- Swapped Zakuani and Keller for better prose.
- Why do you have a subsection 1.1 and no subsection 1.2?
- No full stop after "Ejections" please.
- "Major League Soccer clubs ..." you've already abbreviated it, why not just say "MLS clubs..."
- I just feel that it makes for better prose, especially at the start of the paragraph. If you feel that it needs to be changed, I have no objection.
- Please be aware of an opposition to tables with a mixture of left- and centrally-aligned columns. The discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts/archive1. Personally I have no problem whatsoever with it, but you should be forewarned!
- Warning duly noted, and an instance of left aligned numbers fixed. I don't think this is the same situation, as all of my actual text is left aligned. If I used "Defender", "Midfielder" and "Forward" in the table, I would left align it, but one or two character symbols should be treated in the same way as numbers as far as I'm concerned.
- Not sure just using coloured cards for those columns is allowed under WP:ACCESS...
- They have alt text. If images are disabled, the user will see "yellow card" and "red card" respectively. In the event of a colourblind user, the contrast is sufficent for them to be able to distinguish between the two.
- Notes col doesn't need to be sortable.
- If the players are still on the roster, shouldn't all the years be 2009–10?
- In a way I agree with you, but the rosters won't be finalised until March. Adding "–10" would imply that a player was part of the roster for the 2010 MLS season, or has already played MLS games in the 2010 season.
- "He usually stays near to his goal, and is seldom involved in his side's attacking moves." interesting, true but original research as unsourced.
- I guess you're right. Pity though.
- Blank cells, don't like, so use en-dash for those without notes.
- That Miscellaneous section is no different from a ((trivia)) section so is not recommended.
- The notes are unreferenced.
- The Nyassi note is referenced in the notes column. I didn't feel that the shutout one needed referencing, it's simply an explanation of an ambiguous term. I've added a wikilink.
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. WFCforLife (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
|
- Comments from ChrisTheDude
- "players who only appeared for the team in other competitions are noted at the bottom of the page." - I can't see any.....
- Removed. Previously there were four players listed, but it was a cross between trivia and synthesis, so I just removed it altogether.
- Any reason for the goalies to be listed separately?
- I figured this would come up. For English clubs we don't. But as far as I'm concerned, the reason for this is that we simply didn't record these statistics in the 19th century, and that it would be inconsistent to have this detail just for (please forgive the phrase) internet-era players. With Seattle Sounders there is no such problem, as they are all internet-era players and the MLS goes out of its way to compile these statistics. The options were therefore:
- To ignore the available and more relevant statistics, and include goalkeepers in the same table as everyone else.
- To list the goalkeepers in the main table, but also have a side table for them.
- To have seperate tables for goalkeepers and other players.
- My opinion is that the third option is the best.
- Spelling error in "conceded" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - can't see any issues, your point about goalie stats makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comments from SkotyWA
- I fixed one reference to the team where "Sounders" was used instead of "Sounders FC".
- Do we have any pictures of the players in Sounders FC uniforms that we can use? Here are some pictures I uploaded that might work with the list: 1, 2, or 3. Will any of these fit?
- The Ljungberg picture fits nicely with the international section. Perhaps the first one could go in the lead? WFCforLife (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yeah, I agree. The Ljungberg picture fits well for that section. Do any of the pictures I pointed you at seem viable for the lead? If not, I can keep looking. Some sort of group photo or lineup photo would go well I think with an article which lists players on a team. --SkotyWAT|C 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- If you don't think the pictures I took will fit (which is understandable, I'm a terrible photographer), here is a link to a flickr.com query which will return all photos available under an acceptable license which allows us to port it to Wikipedia. I've already done the port of this photo (here) as it could be used in this list or in the season article. --SkotyWAT|C 18:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think that your first picture is a good one for the list. The image quality isn't as good as the flickr one you've linked to, but it's a great shot. I'm happy either way. WFCforLife (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I disagree with the removal of the misc section. I agree that header text makes it feel a lot like ((trivia)), so I think that needs to change (perhaps "Other Players" or "Additional Players"). There needs to be a section where we can list players who have played for the team, but may not have played in a league match. Given that Sounders FC competes in the U.S. Open Cup every year, and will often be in the Champions League or SuperLiga, there needs to be a section (probably without stats since they can't be sourced) to list players that only appear in those competitions.
- As I noted on the talk page, there are also some players that have appeared only in friendlies. I feel that in order for the list to be complete, it needs to list all players that have represented Sounders FC on the field in any competition (as long as there is a reliable source proving it of course).
- If a Barcelona or Chelsea player's only ever appearances for their respective clubs were in friendlies, they would not be listed. I'm not trying to detract from the significance of those matches, but they were non-competitive fixtures. Comprehensive statistics from all friendlies are not going to exist (although even if they did, I imagine there would still be opposition to including them).
- That's fair. Let's just go for players appearing in competetive competition. --SkotyWAT|C 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- With regards to the Lamar Hunt Open appareances, it was synthesis. If there was a reliable source giving a player's overall appearances in cup competitions, I would support including that information in the main table somehow. The issue is that we can't use every single match report. WFCforLife (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- What if we don't try to say how many times they appeard, only that they appeared at least once in competetive competition, just not league competition. Then it becomes a simple list of players with a reference proving one of their appearances (rather than all). --SkotyWAT|C 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- That seems like a good solution. I'll have a go at it tonight. WFCforLife (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overall, great work WFCforLife taking a flat list and turning it into this high quality content. --SkotyWAT|C 21:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I took a stab at swapping out the picture with the one you said might fit and adding back the "Additional Players" info with a preamble explaining the nature of this additional short list of players. Let me know if this works for you and please make any adjustments to this as you see fit. --SkotyWAT|C 17:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support - with the discussion below it appears that my additions of a different image in the lead, and the "Additional Players" section will stick. Given that, I am now in full support of this list becoming a featured list. I feel that it is a complete list and provides enough context in prose to help the user understand it's relevance. Excellent work WFCforLife! --SkotyWAT|C 16:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comments from Cptnono
Support with the discussion below concluded.
Lots of hurdles on this one. You met both Wikipeida's standards on inclusion and sourcing while being thorough. A few things I really like:
- How Open Cup appearances are mentioned even though those players did not go on to do anything league wise. This is especially important since they won that tournament. It is also the top domestic cup competition (the MLS Cup is a postseason) so other guys should be worthy of mention in the future.
- You perfectly addressed the international pool (which came up just a couple weeks ago!)
- You link to the previous but not technically associated Sounders.
- "Players" was a good choice. MLS owns the rights to players which causes confusion. Both Dragavon's and Montero's status has been questioned but they certainly trained and took the field with the team.
- Keller's stats and card (I searched and searched for a table that wasn't GK only but found nothing)
- Good balance between English variations. It is more than "z" and "s". "Shut out" and "clean sheet" makes a potentially annoying footnote but it provides some clarifying info.
- Good fact checking. I'm going to go over it one more time to make sure none were missed but so far excellent. I get to see the local paper everyday and I doubt I could have made this as clean and accurate as you have.
A couple quick notes:
- You use "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF)." in the first ref then "RSSSF" afterward. I like that but haven't seen it done in the references list. Is that standard? If so, does this need to be done to Major League Soccer in the refs?
- I think they're different situations. The RSSSF is known exclusively as that, but at previous FLCs it has been pointed out that it should still be expanded at least once. With Major League Soccer, the long form and acronym are used interchangeably. We already have mlsnet.com, so spelling out major league soccer adds more value in my opinion. WFCforLife (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Cool. I am going to fix one instance (rest look fine).
- Should a date be added to the lead image since that is a different starting squad than some games in the past and presumably in the future? I also noticed that it was a little blurry. The only other on Flickr features a guys butt in center frame, so this one is good to have overall.
- At 220px it's okay, but hopefully a better quality image will find its way onto wikipedia in 2010. I'm of the mind that it's better to use an inferior quality image that shows exactly what you want, than a high-quality but somewhat irrelevant one. I'm not sure of the Barcelona date, but I've no objection to that being added. Although the fact that it was against Barcelona is probably irrelevant. WFCforLife (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Would it be ridiculous to make a note on who is and who is not active? (let me know if this is better left for a future footy MoS discussion)
- It would at the moment, because they're all still playing as far as I'm aware. Once the roster has been finalised, I'll introduce a key denoting 2010 Sounders, worded along the lines of the one in List of Watford F.C. Players of the Season. Once a few players have retired it may be worth looking at this again.
- A handful are gone. A couple were released mid season. In this offseason, French dude got picked up by Philly and another is not expected to be back. All that aside, that is for discussion on the talk page or at the footy project since this list doesn't make claims to who is active. This might need to be addressed as it grows.
WFCforLife (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overall you took his to a level that I did not expect and that is awesome.Cptnono (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Bias from being a fan and wishing you the best of luck in the Cup aside, this is a great list and easily meets (if not surpassing) the requirements seen at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Comprehensive and clearly laid out. Nice work. Cptnono (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Provisional support – Looks like a solid list overall. Only found a few minor points upon inspection. First, there are a couple of "also"s in the Additional players section that strike me as redundant; the one after "In addition..." is particularly blatant. In the references, FIFA should probably be spelled out, and references 12 and 13 should use italics for their publishers, since they are newspapers. I'm sure these will be taken care of shortly, and this can be considered a full support after that occurs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- All done, except for the spelling out of FIFA. Where the wikipedia article is actually located at the acronym, I consider that acronym common enough (or the name obscure enough) to use the acronym unqualified if it is only used in the references. WFCforLife (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
