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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [1].

List of Silver Slugger Award winners at third base[edit]

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils)
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the criteria, etc. I waited until one of my lists cleared out of the queue and gave a little time before nominating this list, but I think it's ready. It's article 4 toward my proposed WP:FT (see bottom of this page for details) and I will address all concerns as always. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco
External links
  • Using the links checker tool at the right, one ref leads to a dead link.
Lead
  • Among third basemen, Wade Boggs has won the most Silver Slugger Awards, with eight wins between the rival New York Yankees (two) and Boston Red Sox (six). -- Remove the the
  • Removing either would make the sentence grammatically incorrect. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean the the before rival. Its not right to have it there.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammatically speaking, there is nothing wrong with that the. It is the article for both New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same comment that I stated in the second base FLC, fix the formatting of your acronym use.
  • That's not what I meant, see the other FLC.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schmidt won the first five NL Silver Slugger Awards at third base from 1980, when he led the Philadelphia Phillies to the World Series, to 1984[5] before his streak was broken by Tim Wallach. -- When was it broken?
  • Look in the list. It encourages the reader to move forward. It's also a matter of math for the reader; not every fact needs to be explicated, or there'd be no need for a list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have to be obnoxious with all your responses. How is it a matter of math when the reader doesn't even know when it was broken?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My response was not intended to be obnoxious, but if you found it to be so, I apologize. As to the comment, it is explicit in the lead that Schmidt won five consecutive awards from 1980 to 1984. Since he did not win 6 consecutive awards, it can certainly be inferred that Wallach won in 1985. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rodriguez batted in 156 runs during the 2007 season as well;[7] the NL record is held by Castilla (144 RBI in 1998). -- This acronym was not spelled out before this.
  • Untrue. Paragraph 1. However, it's been expanded per MOS:ABBR. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, you meant RBI. Please clarify next time. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify the most recent winners from both leagues.
  • See my comment at the second base FLC. The table makes this clear, as do the images, for that matter, and the lead is certainly long enough. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, see mines then.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is still the only concern I have.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I give. Where would you suggest the addition? End of the first paragraph? I'd like to keep it the same since I'm following the same format for all of these winners' lists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It usually goes at the end of the paragraphs, but in this context, I guess you can do that or find somewhere where it is suitable. If this bothers you, I'm guessing it won't hurt the list not to have it since you did a great job explaining the rest.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, done for all lists of winners by position that are completed so far, and they are covered by the general reference. Do you think I need to add a whole paragraph of most recent winners to the main article of the topic or is it OK the way it is? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables and references check out up to standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL. In response to the main article, that would be overkill to do so, I think just having the winners from each league will suffice.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since there are 73 inline refs, it is a good idea to split them into 2 columns.—Chris! ct 22:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As always, nice list, so support—Chris! ct 05:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed per WP:MOSNUM. Changing to a digit here is correct but using the dash and abbreviating the unit on first use is not. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses" per MOS:CONVERSIONS (specific section of the same page). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, my mistake, it must have changed since I last read it. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please elaborate? MOSNUM says "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." –Juliancolton | Talk 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no "comparable quantities" here. Three awards is unrelated to 61 home runs. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KV5 is correct here, these are not comparable quantities or entities. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are intentional because they are related; some units are common between the two clauses. See semicolon for more details. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know what a semicolon is meant to do, but we still don't need one for every sentence. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed two of them, the ones that I felt could have stood the change. The other three still need to be there with the way it's written. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton | Talk 23:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "Among third basemen, Wade Boggs has won the most Silver Slugger Awards, with eight wins between the rival New York Yankees (two) and Boston Red Sox (six)." This is unclear, the use of "with" as a connector (which is clumsy anyway) obscures the logic of the sentence. It's not clear whether "rival" applies to the Yankees or the rivaling teams in general. You might need to split up these sentences.
  • I tweaked it a little. How's the current version? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better. I think you can change "between" to "with" now. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Current Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez" Don't use "current" and other dated language per WP:DATED.
  • "but has ten wins in his career as he accumulated seven wins as a shortstop with the Seattle Mariners and Texas Rangers." "but" is used incorrectly here, leading to a false contrast. Use "and" instead. Also, the "as ... as" repetition is annoying. Perhaps break things up with a semicolon: "and has ten wins in his career; he accumulated seven wins as a shortstop with the Seattle Mariners and Texas Rangers."
  • I don't see how it's a false contrast. Could you explain? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second idea doesn't contradict the first; it just provides additional information. The fact that he has three Silver Sluggers with the AL does not contradict the fact that he won ten total. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I don't like the way "wins" is used here (I always think of actual games), but I suppose there is no better alternative.
  • I don't like it either, but I couldn't find an alternative. I know it's confusing in terms of wins, but I did the best I could. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe something will hit me before the FT, hmm? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Rodriguez holds the Major League record" Another false contrast.
  • Again, I don't see how it's a false contrast. This one is supposed to be a contrast. The National League record is mentioned first; the "however" is meant to clarify that a higher total has been achieved. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood; in that case, I don't think "However" is the most clear word. Perhaps, "Despite this"? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rodriguez batted in 156 runs during the 2007 season as well" Why "as well"? Was there someone else who batted in 156 runs?
  • No, but the "as well" is in reference to the previous sentence: He hit 54 home runs, and batted in 156 runs as well, if you care to think of it that way. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you explained it, it kind of makes sense, but I still don't see why it's necessary; it is also confusing through its ambiguity. I understand your feelings about keeping a certain amount of modifiers and transitional phrases in prose, but forcing them in there, as in here, doesn't help.

Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you be averse to this wording? "Rodriguez also batted in 156 runs during the 2007 season[7]" KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't see the purpose of "also"; these additive terms are oft overused. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it looks, reads, and sounds poor, but done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008
Comments - Looking good, just like the others in the series. Just a few picky things before I support:
  • I find it odd that the Yankees are listed before the Red Sox for Wade Boggs, considering that he spent much more time with the Sox (and this is coming from a Yankees fan). Only time the Sox should ever be ahead of the Yanks. :-)
  • I don't know why I put it that way, I find it odd too because there's no justification for it. I'll change it though it's really no difference. For the record, I don't like either team. At all. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miguel Cabrera holds the National League record for a third baseman, with .336." This could give the year he posted the top average.
  • Done, caught a botched stat too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for Boggs' on-base percentage record.
  • Doubled in is intentional. Statistic is "runs batted in", "in 1998" is the time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked the wording about to avoid the appearance of repetition. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Meets the standards, along with the others in the series so far. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. My Support for promotion stands.--Truco 15:00, 9 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.
More