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 Matthewedwards 21:45, 14 April 2009 [1].

List of Silver Slugger Award winners at shortstop[edit]

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Featured list candidates/List of Silver Slugger Award winners at shortstop/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Silver Slugger list #5. Info on proposed FT: click here, scroll to bottom. Comments to be addressed: promptly, by the nominator. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It seems like the suggestions from previous FLC's have been integrated here, and thus I cannot find any errors ~~but one. Its not clarified as to who was the first winner of the award in the lead.~~--Best, ₮RU CӨ 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the other lists either, unless they hold some kind of record. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, looks up to speed. Support--Best, ₮RU CӨ 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One minor comment that applies to all of the lists. I was going to bring this up when I reviewed one of these lists, but I never got round to doing so. I'm away from tomorrow so if I don't say this now i'll probably forget forever. It might be a pain to fix but, in the references, the websites are not works and should not be italicised. This got brought up at an FAC nom of mine recently and I was advised to remove the work field completely if it was just a website, because the websites are obvious from the url and shouldn't be italicised. Good luck with the rest of the topic, at the rate you've been going it will be finished by the time I get back! Rambo's Revenge (ER) 21:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did this get changed? We've been using websites as works for quite some time now. If there's going to be a change, then there needs to be a discussion on it between FA and FL reviewers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italics should only be used for printed publications, such as reference 15 (Sports Illustrated). As an FAC reviewer, I can confirm that has been the case since I began reviewing. There's a good chance that FLC has gotten this wrong all along, and I've never liked using italics in my own work. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a chance that FAC could be wrong. From WP:CITE:

Citations for world wide web articles (for reliable sources such as the Australian War Memorial) typically include:

the name of the author or authors,

the title of the article in quotes,

the name of the website (linked to a Wikipedia article about the site if it exists, or to Website's "about page"),

date of publication,

page number(s) (if applicable),

the date you retrieved it (invisible to the reader if the article has a date of publication),^{[dubious – discuss]}

an optional short quote (used rarely, if the source is likely to be challenged)

The name of the website in the URL is rarely visible because of the |title= parameter, so the name of the website is necessary. Indeed, it's also necessary for the Baseball-Reference site, because the publisher and work are different. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the name of the website" is what calls for a publisher. It doesn't say anywhere that a work field has to be filled out as well. Of course, it does come in handy in some situations, and I wouldn't oppose over it, but I'm not a fan of putting a lot of extra info in the cite templates myself. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only times that they are disambiguated here is when the website name/work is different from the publisher. For example, Sports Illustrated and Louisville Slugger not disambiguated, but Baseball-Reference/Sports Reference LLC and Brewers.MLB.com/Major League Baseball are. Just so happens that a lot are from B-R. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008
Comments - "Rodriguez leads American League and major league shortstops in most offensive statistical categories during his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons". leads→led. He still leads them because his records haven't been broken. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] There's a tense issue with the construction of this sentence: "Rodriguez leads...during his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons". The whole sentence needs re-working, now that I look at it more closely. Why don't you borrow some wording from one of your other lists in this topic? Giants2008 (17-14) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'll check it out. I don't want to borrow wording because I don't want to be repetitive. I will see what I can do and will get back to you here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Is this better wording? "Rodriguez' offensive statistics lead American League and major league shortstops in most categories in his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons" KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Try moving "in his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons" to before "statistics lead". I think that would be the best you could do, grammar-wise. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I don't understand. "Rodriguez' offensive in his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons statistics lead American League and major league shortstops in most categories" isn't a sentence. Did you mean "Rodriguez' offensive statistics in his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons lead American League and major league shortstops in most categories"? Yes. Should have written it out in full. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] (outdent) Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Rodriguez also leads National Leaguers in this category, having hit 40 or more home runs in six of his seven seasons winning at shortstop." Since when has A-Rod been in the NL? He hasn't. As with the previous sentence, his AL records far surpass the National League records (several times), which bears mentioning. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] There's room for one more image next to the AL winners. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm using the same format for all lists. Originally, I used three images per league but it doesn't work with all the lists, so I'm maintaining two images per league plus a lead image for all of the lists in the topic. (edit) The exception will probably be the outfield list, because the rationale behind what I'm doing is showing the two most recent winners, but the outfield doesn't have "2" recent winners, they have three or six. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments -

"Rodriguez leads American League and major league shortstops in most offensive statistical categories during his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons". leads→led.

He still leads them because his records haven't been broken. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tense issue with the construction of this sentence: "Rodriguez leads...during his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons". The whole sentence needs re-working, now that I look at it more closely. Why don't you borrow some wording from one of your other lists in this topic? Giants2008 (17-14) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out. I don't want to borrow wording because I don't want to be repetitive. I will see what I can do and will get back to you here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this better wording? "Rodriguez' offensive statistics lead American League and major league shortstops in most categories in his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons" KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try moving "in his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons" to before "statistics lead". I think that would be the best you could do, grammar-wise. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. "Rodriguez' offensive in his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons statistics lead American League and major league shortstops in most categories" isn't a sentence. Did you mean "Rodriguez' offensive statistics in his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons lead American League and major league shortstops in most categories"?

Yes. Should have written it out in full. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rodriguez also leads National Leaguers in this category, having hit 40 or more home runs in six of his seven seasons winning at shortstop." Since when has A-Rod been in the NL?

He hasn't. As with the previous sentence, his AL records far surpass the National League records (several times), which bears mentioning. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's room for one more image next to the AL winners. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the same format for all lists. Originally, I used three images per league but it doesn't work with all the lists, so I'm maintaining two images per league plus a lead image for all of the lists in the topic. (edit) The exception will probably be the outfield list, because the rationale behind what I'm doing is showing the two most recent winners, but the outfield doesn't have "2" recent winners, they have three or six. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Not worried about the ref formatting too much, and everything else looks fine. Another great baseball award list. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Rodriguez' offensive statistics lead American League and major league shortstops" Redundancy, is the American League not a part of "major league"? True. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] "are ~~all~~ records among winning" Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] "category where Rodriguez"-->category in which Rodriguez Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] "In contrast, all seven of Rodriguez' Silver Slugger seasons resulted in RBI totals over 100 (ranging from 111 in 1999 to 142 in 2002)" I don't like the use of "resulted" here, it's not as precise as it could be. Maybe, "In contrast, Rodriguez collected RBI totals over 100 (ranging from 111 in 1999 to 142 in 2002) in all seven of his Silver Slugger-winning seasons". In fact, you could take this further remove "seven" from here, since you already mentioned that he won seven as a shortstop before, but that is up to you. Done both. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Hanley Ramirez is the NL's most recent Silver Slugger winner." There is nothing wrong with this image caption, but phrasing it like this would mean that you would have to update it later. Why not simply mention that he won it in 2008? Was trying to avoid redundancy between captions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Not a big issue, just remember to update the caption when necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Montréal Expos" The main article does not have the accent, is something amiss? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nothing amiss with me. The correct spelling of the city's name is Montréal, even if the English spelling doesn't use the accented e (it's technically not an English letter, so it's not used in the English spelling). The redirect works, so I suppose it's just personal preference that the city's name be displayed as it's actually spelled. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is wildly inconsistent in its usage of diacritics, so I'm not worried. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

"Rodriguez' offensive statistics lead American League and major league shortstops" Redundancy, is the American League not a part of "major league"?

True. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"are ~~all~~ records among winning"

Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"category where Rodriguez"-->category in which Rodriguez

Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In contrast, all seven of Rodriguez' Silver Slugger seasons resulted in RBI totals over 100 (ranging from 111 in 1999 to 142 in 2002)" I don't like the use of "resulted" here, it's not as precise as it could be. Maybe, "In contrast, Rodriguez collected RBI totals over 100 (ranging from 111 in 1999 to 142 in 2002) in all seven of his Silver Slugger-winning seasons". In fact, you could take this further remove "seven" from here, since you already mentioned that he won seven as a shortstop before, but that is up to you.

Done both. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hanley Ramirez is the NL's most recent Silver Slugger winner." There is nothing wrong with this image caption, but phrasing it like this would mean that you would have to update it later. Why not simply mention that he won it in 2008?

Was trying to avoid redundancy between captions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big issue, just remember to update the caption when necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Montréal Expos" The main article does not have the accent, is something amiss? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing amiss with me. The correct spelling of the city's name is Montréal, even if the English spelling doesn't use the accented e (it's technically not an English letter, so it's not used in the English spelling). The redirect works, so I suppose it's just personal preference that the city's name be displayed as it's actually spelled. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is wildly inconsistent in its usage of diacritics, so I'm not worried. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.