Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1972 Winter Olympics medal table/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 Dabomb87 21:51, 1 October 2010 [1].

1972 Winter Olympics medal table

[edit]

1972 Winter Olympics medal table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... another Olympics medal table. Surprisingly, before the expansion I didn't think I could produce such a large and comprehensive lead section for this medal table list. I'm quite content with the way this list developed. Well, you know the drill. Thanks in advance for all comments/suggestions! Parutakupiu (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the very long intro. I strongly suggest splitting it into a proper one (i.e. summarizing succinctly the medal table) and a separate section in the article on the "firsts" or notable wins. Nergaal (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it's on the edge—or past already—of becoming a long lead. I'll work on that. What do you think that second section should be actually called? "Highlights", "Notable wins"? I want to be as accurate as possible without introducing s POV on the title. Parutakupiu (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not complaining but I predict that if I divide things as you suggest, the intro will become significantly shorter than the following section... but it's just a prediction, and I'm still trying to change the puzzle here. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I think I managed to address your suggestion. The new sections look more balanced in terms of content than what I'd initially expect. What do you think? Parutakupiu (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I like it much more now. But it still has a small issue with the lead. For example "Spanish Francisco Fernández Ochoa prevailed in the alpine skiing's men's slalom, thus becoming their country's first Winter Olympic champions" is in the lead but not in the highlights section. It is fine if the lead is shorter while the highlights is longer because the lead is supposed to summarize what's in the entire article. Also "For the first time in its history, a delegation from Finland concluded its participation at the Winter Olympics without taking home any gold medals.[6] The Republic of China and the Philippines sent athletes to the Winter Olympics for the first time, but failed to win any medals" goes better into the highlights section. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Addressed all your points except the one regarding the debuting NOCs, which I think belongs in the intro but cannot be developed much more than that so that it's mentioned again in the highlights. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to reviewers: Is "Highlights" appropriate for the section title? What do you think of "Highlights and notable contributions" or just "Notable contributions"? Or another completely different? Parutakupiu (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Images clash on my 13" Macbook, forcing the Schenk image (and all text) into a tiny column.
    • That might be a consequence of stacking the images. I do that because it doesn't mess with the section editing links, but on the other hand it messes up the page layout in different resolutions. Should I unstack them? Parutakupiu (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that detail on the medal indicative of what it was won for (Margit Schumann and her luge?) If so, definitely worth a mention in the caption, especially if medals were cast dependent on the discipline.
  • Forgive my ignorance but what's a "normal hill event"?
    • There are two ski jumping events according to the jumping distance: normal and large hill. Their distance has been steadily increased with the years. In 1972 a "normal hill" was a run length of 70 meters, while a "large hill" was 90 meters. Note added. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Karen Magnussen's silver in the figure skating's singles competition summed up Canada's weakest performance" I guess you mean "summed up" in the literal sense, but colloquially this would mean "was a symptom of", if you catch my drift.
  • "It would take 26 years " I never like these "it would be" kind of prose things, when we already know what happens, so maybe "it took 26 years..."?
  • "By default, the table is ordered by the number of gold medals the athletes from a NOC have won." reads really awkwardly to me.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review! Parutakupiu (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support –

Resolved comments from Courcelles 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
"Seventeen NOCs won at least one medal and 14 of them collected at least one gold." Don't mix formats of words and numerals.
Corrected. Well spotted. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"in the case of Spain, it was its very first medal at this event." In an Olympic context, "event" usually means one specific competition, not one celebration of the Games, or-as used here-one season. This confusion between the usage of event continues in the next section. Courcelles 15:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "at this event". I think one can understand that it's the first medal at the Winter Games, no? Parutakupiu (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
Comments –
  • "For Canada, it was its weakest result in 36 years, when its athletes..." – Not keen on this phrasing, the three 'it's in the sentence are a bit clumsy, and the second is mostly redundant. Why not rephrase to "It was Canada's weakest result in 36 years, when their athletes..."?
  • "Hosting the Olympic Winter Games for the first time,[1] Japan's record in this event consisted.." – 'event' for me means an individual sport, not the whole thing. Maybe replace it with "Japan's record in the games consisted.." (maybe capitalise Games, I'm not sure)
  • "...guaranteed a medal sweep..." – Can you either link to an article explaining what is meant be a 'medal sweep', or explain it with a note here.
  • "...thus becoming their country's first Winter Olympic champions." – Pretty sure that this is the wrong form of the possessive. They are two different countries, so I would recommend "...thus becoming their respective countries' first Winter Olympic champions."
  • As above for 'podium sweeps'.

Other than these pretty picky prose issues, it's a good article, and once these have been resolved I'll happily lend my support. Harrias talk 09:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

  1. This was Canada's weakest result in 36 years, when its athletes also brought home a single silver medal from the 1936 Winter Olympics. This is a convoluted sentence. I suggest something like "The Canada's result was the weakest in 36 years since 1936 Winter Olympics, when its athletes brought home a single silver medal".
    Replaced "in 36 years" with "since 1936 Winter Olympics", thus moving it from the end of the sentence. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree that you should explain what "a medal sweep" means. In Sapporo, Yukio Kasaya (gold), Akitsugu Konno (silver), and Seiji Aochi (bronze) guaranteed a medal sweep for the host team in the ski jumping's normal hill (70 m) event, and gave Japan its first-ever gold medal at the Winter Games. is also a somewhat convoluted sentence.
    I'm not going to add an explanation for what a medal or podium sweep is, so I replaced the expression with adequate prose with similar meaning. Also rephrased the whole sentence to make it look less intricate. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. with both doubles teams finishing in the top three Does this mean men's and women's teams?
    Actually, in doubles there was only men competing, but I rephrased the whole sentence to make it more clear. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It still unclear that there was only men competing. Ruslik_Zero 11:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Attempt no. 2. Officially, it's a mixed event but only male pairs have entered it. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Two-time world figure skating champion Ondrej Nepela added the Olympic men's singles title to his career and guaranteed Czechoslovakia's second and last Winter Olympics gold medal. It is unclear whether this second gold medal was (i) the second and last for Czechoslovakia at Sapporo games (ii) the second and last for Czechoslovakia in the figure skating overall (iii) the second and last for Czechoslovakia in Winter Olimpics. See also the caption.
    I tried to make that more clear, but don't know if I succeeded. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/1972_Winter_Olympics_medal_table/archive1&oldid=1089082125"