Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Calgary Flames draft picks

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 Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [1].

List of Calgary Flames draft picks

Nominator(s): Reso lute

Well, here we go again with this list. Third time lucky? I can only hope as this has easily been the most frustrating article I have worked on! The last FLC fell down mainly on sorting issues, and after a great deal of trial and error - mainly error - I have resolved the problems. There is, however, one exception. The Matt Keetley entry breaks the entire sorting function if I do anything to it. Even removing his entry breaks it. Don't ask me why, but I've spent hours trying to solve it, and have ultimately decided it is a flaw in the sorting functionality itself. Otherwise, this list is complete, statistics are accurate to the end of last season, and is stated as such, plenty of images, and I believe should meet WP:WIAFL. Looking forward to all comments. Reso lute 16:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

The NHL holds a draft lottery for the 14 non-playoff teams, allowing the winner to move up a maximum of four positions in the draft. -- (1)Link to draft lottery (2)Make it clear that it is the entry draft (at the end of the sentence)
One player, Al MacInnis, has been elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame. -- Just mention the player by his last name since he has been already mentioned before.
With the 25th pick, the Flames selected Greg Nemisz from the Ontario Hockey League's Windsor Spitfires. -- Was their 25th pick their final pick?

See also

Remove the first entry, its already mentioned in the article.

References

The TSN acronym needs to spelled out in the publishers.--₮RU CӨ 03:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, done, done, done and done. Thanks! Reso lute 04:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what was the problem (other than sorting) in the table, but IMO it looks fine, but I want other reviewers inputs before I can make my decision. But overall, you've done a great job fixing it up. You may notify me when another reviewer has reviewed the list.--₮RU CӨ 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- --₮RU CӨ 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

Could the first table in the key be arranged differently so there isn't a blank section in the bottom right?
Humour me on this one, as I know nothing about ice hockey....what does W/L/T/OTL/GAA signify (not as in what does it stand for, but what does it actually mean?) and why do only some players have stats in those columns?
Shouldn't the columns with numbers in be centred?

All looks good otherwise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latter stats are goaltender stats, so would apply only to players at that position. Wins, losses, ties, overtime losses are the results of the game they played in, while goals against average is how many goals they gave up per 60 minutes of play. I'll add a clarification statement for that. Reworking the key as well. As far as centring the numbers goes, I'm not certain the overhead is worth it. I'd have to centre align the entire table, then left align the country and name cells individually... some 750 additional entries. I'll do it if it is deemed necessary, however. Reso lute 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-aligned the table for you, but you might want to check I haven't accidentally messed anything up :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks good. Thanks for doing that. Reso lute 05:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. The em dash issue that is being discussed on the FLC talk page is not a dealbreaker, but I'd like to see it fixed. I wouldn't impede promotion over it though; we can resolve it afterward. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

"and until 1979, it drafted as the Atlanta Flames." This is a bit forced, especially since it is understood that while the team was in Atlanta it would be drafting under said name. This is what I think you should do: Add a {{seealso}} link that takes users to the Atlanta Flames list, and rephrase to something along the lines of "The franchise was founded in 1972 as the Atlanta Flames, and relocated to Calgary in 1980.

Moved it down to the see also section.

"the Flames have selected ~~a total of~~ 306 players"

Fixed

"The NHL Entry Draft is held each June as teams select players" "as" is clumsy here; maybe "The NHL Entry Draft is held each June; teams select players

Fixed

"players in American colleges that were otherwise ineligible for the Entry Draft." Ambiguous, were the players otherwise ineligible or the colleges?

Simplified

"The highest Calgary"-->The highest that Calgary

Fixed

The color needs accompanying symbols. Also, why does the color extend all the way across the row? Just use it to highlight the players' names.

I disagree on that, since the very existence of stats beside the players acts as the symbols. However, given the use of shading has been questioned in the past as well, I've decided simply to remove it.

Add a note that says the years link to articles about NHL drafts for that year. Alternatively, you could rename the column header to "Draft".

Done

List of NHL players—Isn't especially relevant, not even for the See also section. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and removed. Thanks! Reso lute 05:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about sorting moved to talk page Reso lute 03:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there a reason there's no mdash in the blank spaces? Maxim_(talk) 21:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the discussion on the talk page of this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with DB87 above on both points of the sorting issue. I will not withhold my weak support as well for this list; the sorting issue can be resolved outside of this review period, but the content is featured material. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This is really nothing, but involves the Gary Roberts caption. As of last week, he's no longer active. Other than that minor detail, which obviously wasn't an issue when the list was nominated, and you've got my support. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to get technical, he hasn't formally announced his retirement yet, so the caption was still accurate on one level. ;) I've changed it regardless. It was fitting that his last NHL game was in Calgary though. Reso lute 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Considering he stated he won't play after this year or in the AHL, and the Lightning aren't going to call him up again, what he says doesn't really matter anymore. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

"...the Flames have selected 306 players." selected --> drafted.

Changed, though I do become concerned about overusing the word "draft/drafted"

"The Flames have never won the lottery." You didn't tell the readers how you win the lottery.

I tried to add a bit more, but I didn't think it was unclear. Have my changes helped?

On the table, why aren't the "S"es not center aligned?

I have no idea, changed.

Just wondering, why didn't you add which team/high school/college that they came from? And if so, why did you want images over this?

I did have the info initially, however removed it due to size limitations on the chart. The junior/college teams a player played with is not really a defining characteristic of a hockey player like it seems to be for football and basketball players.

In the Draft picks section, tell the readers that this does not include Atlanta Flames draft picks, just in case.

It is mentioned in the lead, however a second note has been added.

There's no need in abbreviating Round and Nationality. I've tried, and it could fit (though won't if you put the team/highschool/college column).

Changed

OTL --> OT, as the NHL now uses OT.

Changed

Why couldn't you link Overtime on the key?

Umm, I simply didn't? lol. fixed.

Fix the disambiguation.

There is no article to dab draft lottery to. I've simply delinked it for now. Though I could also convert to a redlink and write something later.

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Reso lute 14:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c] (continued)

"The Flames have never won the lottery." Didn't you already tell the readers the Flames' highest draft picks were sixth overall?

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the reader is also told that the most the team winning the lottery can move up is four positions in the draft. Thus, if Calgary were to finish 10th last and win the lottery, they would only move up to 6th. Reso lute 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Though I still would like to have trades note about the draft picks that were first on another team, but since WP:NHL doesn't care, ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't like the fact that the images pushes the list down at 1024x768 resolution. Some of the players depicted never even played for the Flames, and many of them never made any big impact, do you think you could limit the number of images and perhaps put them in a gallery? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table appears fine for me at 1024x768 on my laptop screen. However, I will try to shrink them a little further. Not every player who is drafted by a team plays for them, so I personally believe their inclusion is appropriate. Resolute 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried upright all the pictures with 1024x768 resolution, and it works just like 125px (in fact it probably is, but not sure). So why not upright it? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did just change it to 125px, so yes, converting to upright would probably work at this point. Reso lute 19:49, 13 March 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.