Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech University alumni (sports)/archive1

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 Giants2008 21:07, 2 September 2011 [1].

List of Texas Tech University alumni (sports)

Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech University alumni (sports)/archive1

Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status as it meets all FL criteria. NThomas (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5

Suggest moving {{dynamic list}} hatnote to top of article
- According to the template's documentation: "Place this template tag in an article, immediately before the applicable list." It makes no mention of it's place before the lead. Also, I went through the "College/university alumni, faculty and related people" in the FL education section, and the majority of articles with a legend, like this article, have the template immediately before the applicable list. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"1,839 acres (7.44 km2)" - use {{convert}} here
- Done. Didn't know that template existed, thanks! NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Linking the sports in the lead would be advantageous to readers who are otherwise uninitiated.
- Do you mean linking to the sport specific programs representing Texas Tech (baseball is linked to Texas Tech Red Raiders baseball, football is linked to Texas Tech Red Raiders football, etc.) or simply baseball and American football? NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leagues should be linked in the table.
- Done. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Athletics table has no references.
- Done. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead would benefit from another paragraph outlining some of the people, since this is a list of people. It seems a little short otherwise. Are there record-holders, Hall of Famers, etc.?
- Other than three former players in the College Football Hall of Fame, there aren't any alumni with national honors other than collegiate position awards, nothing of the "Pro Hall of Fame" variety. Would collegiate position awards suffice? NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The HOF is definitely worth a mention. If there's nothing beyond collegiate position awards, I feel that they would be appropriate since this is a college-specific list. — KV5 • Talk • 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added the paragraph. NThomas (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Linking the sports in the lead would be advantageous to readers who are otherwise uninitiated.
- Do you mean linking to the sport specific programs representing Texas Tech (baseball is linked to Texas Tech Red Raiders baseball, football is linked to Texas Tech Red Raiders football, etc.) or simply baseball and American football? NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant the sport articles themselves (not the team's programs). — KV5 • Talk • 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. NThomas (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these give you a start. — KV5 • Talk • 23:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support — KV5 • Talk • 10:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PumpkinSky

There are a lot of red links here, not just to names but to at least one see also link. FL guideline is that red links should be "minimal". IMHO there are way too many here. Suggest moving them to the talk page til they have articles. PumpkinSky talk 02:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree that there are too many; the proportion is quite low. As long as they are verifiably part of a complete list (or, in this case, as complete as a dynamic list can get), they should remain, especially since they all, as pro football and basketball players (the only tables containing redlinks), inherently meet the notability qualifications outlined in WP:ATHLETE. Since all lines are sourced, there's no reason not to consider these verified. — KV5 • Talk • 11:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only 35 out of the 200 total entries have red links (17%). While I agree 17% is hardly minimal, but I have a hard time calling this list a Creation guide. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Only 17%" is not minimal. That's almost 1 in 5. Minimal to me is 5% or less. If we're going to allow 17% we may as well all 100%. If someone is notable for an FL they should have an article. PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, we need to acknowledge that some articles haven't been written yet, that's why red links are good, they show a notable article is yet to be created. Less than one in five isn't so bad, many FLCs come here with much more than that, they're usually rejected. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future" from WP:SAL. — KV5 • Talk • 02:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my objection stands. 17% is too much--that's more in "significant portion" land than "minimal" land. PumpkinSky talk 23:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your input. Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

John Parchman is unsourced in the football table.
- Added reliable source, but since the story comes from a monthly publication, I used "December" in the month parameter. Is that right or should it be "12?" NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - For a monthly, December should be fine. Queue someone discussing a part of the MoS I didn't know existed that gives different recommendations. :-) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-checking note: For Carlos Francis, the NFL ref indicates that he didn't play in 2007, just from 2004 to 2006.
- Thanks for that find. Since he only played 5 games in the 2004 season, his WP:NSPORTS would only include seasons in which he played in a game. This is something I've done with the rest of the list trying to follow WP:NSPORTS for the "Notability" column. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 6, 161, 185, and 192 need en dashes for the page ranges.
- Done. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 64, 65, 68, 119, 132, and 133 require further formatting. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
- I couldn't find a attribution to any media guides or record books so they've been removed. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are hyphens in refs 32, 62, and 209 that would be better formatted as en dashes.
- Done. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, what makes ArenaFan (refs 116 and 126) reliable?
- ArenaFan is one of the 9 statistic links on Template:Infobox NFL player. I looked on the template's talk page and couldn't find a reasoning to include ArenaFan as a reliable source for the 1,000s of articles that use that site for statistics in the player template. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you couldn't find a reasoning, that doesn't help much in establishing reliability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to this Wikipedia page, ArenaFan should be considered a reliable source. NThomas (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just because a WikiProject says a source is reliable doesn't mean it actually is. In this case, their assertion that the site having multiple contributors makes it reliable is questionable to me. I'm going to leave this out in case other reviewers want to comment on it. Maybe they'll have some opinions on it, one way or the other. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I reviewed this source and found it questionable. It is a good clearinghouse for links to other, more reliable sites about arena football, but its contributors are not individually vetted and there's no proof that it is reliably edited or has any sort of professional/expert oversight. — KV5 • Talk • 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It sounds like this is a problem bigger than this list. Maybe this is something that needs to be addressed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? NThomas (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I would concur with that need. In the meantime, can an alternative source be found for these two items? — KV5 • Talk • 00:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Not one that is as accurate as the ArenaFan references. Also, there's a comprehensive list of AFL players on ArenaFan that lists ~30 AFL players that could be included on this list if ArenaFan can be determined to be a reliable source. I've added the ~30 players in a formatted table on the talk page to be inserted into the existing table in the future. NThomas (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I've gone ahead and brought up the validity of www.arenafan.com on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As of now, the references in question have been removed so this FLC can move forward. NThomas (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*I'm looking at reference 6, on the indicated pages. This list lists lettermen; what makes you think the graduating years and the lettering years are the same?

This list doesn't say graduation year, or if they graduated at all, just the final "Class year.". NThomas (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you know the letter year is the final class year? Albacore (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going off the source. NThomas (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 180 use hyphens in the accessdate instead of ndashes

Did you mean en dashes instead of hyphens? I've never heard of using en dashes for dates, only ranges. NThomas (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently using en dashes in Ref 180: Retrieved 2011–05–11. Same for ref 156: Retrieved 2011–06–12. They should be 2011-05-11 and 2011-06-12 respectively. Albacore (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed all 4 characters. NThomas (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tables currently fail WP:ACCESS standards. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial for more information.

I'm still trying to comprehend these new changes. So this is a work in progress. NThomas (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I used one section, Golf, to test out all the WP:ACCESS standards. Based on that section alone, does that table pass? NThomas (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. — KV5 • Talk • 23:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albacore (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The rest of the article have been updated. NThomas (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tentative support after To sort this table by nation, total medal count, or any other column, click on the icon next to the column title. is formatted to the list, or removed. Albacore (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's embarrassing. I found that table sorting description from 1998 Asian Games medal table, but forgot to format it for this list. Now it's fixed. NThomas (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albacore (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

One dab link, to "National Basketball League".

Corrected to National Basketball Association. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"as of 2009, the university..." it's 2011 now so those very specific figures are bound to be incorrect...

I replaced the 2009 figures with 2010, since these numbers tend to be an academic year behind. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You link American football after you've already mentioned (presumably American) football the previous sentence.
Same with baseball and basketball.

I switched the sentences so now it reads better and the links are before the one in question. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys really call it association football or soccer?

It's called soccer, but I didn't want to WP:PIPE it. Is piping soccer OK for this? NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piping is fine. Just surprised that you thought soccer wasn't normal US English. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about MOS:TIES. Corrected to soccer and piped. NThomas (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: Would American football need changed to simply football? What about the section head for "gridiron football" since in the US, it would simply be known as football. I chose gridiron as an overview since that section contains Canadian football, and indoor football players, not just American football players. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gridiron is fine as a general heading to cover more than one form of US-style "football". Stick with American football unless guided otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link "Texas Tech Red Raiders" in the lead.

Done. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the last sentence of the lead not referenced when other similar sentences in the lead are?

No reason. Refs added. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni heading should say Alumnus as it's singular.

I'm curious as to why it should be singular. The second heading for the coaches in List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches is coaches, not coach. Same with the buildings in List of tallest buildings in Dallas. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Class year and Notability be single then? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're referring to only that person in question, not multiple people, same goes for alumnus. That makes perfect sense, thanks for explaining. Corrected. NThomas (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"record holder for most Point after touchdowns" shouldn't that be "record holder for the most points after touchdowns"?

Fixed. NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the refs, sometimes you link Texas Tech University, sometimes you don't. Be consistent.

They're all now linked. Thanks! NThomas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support my niggling issues politely and expediently dealt with, with my thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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