Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Euroscar/archive2

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 archived by Crisco 1492 11:59, 18 March 2015 [1].

Euroscar[edit]

Euroscar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): pbp 16:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is ready. It follows a similar format to other featured lists such as NBA Most Valuable Player Award and IBM Award. All award winners are sourced. pbp 16:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Is it Euroscar or "Euroscar European Player of the Year Award"?
  • "award that started in 1979" -> "was first presented in..." or something.
  • "The award names each year's best " perhaps better something like "The annual award is presented to the best..."
  • Consider infobox.
    • One has been added pbp
  • " including National Basketball Association players." seems nugatory after "regardless of where he plays in the world"
  • Is this a male-only award? What are the rules?
  • "This is not the official European basketball player of the year award, which is the FIBA Europe Player of the Year Award given out by the International Basketball Federation." This is also not many other things. This is an odd turn of phrase. Perhaps just state that there is also a European POTY...
 Fixed Removed pbp 22:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous calendar year thing is repeated and over emphasised.
 Fixed Removed second instance. pbp 22:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The award is given out by" do you really mean that it's sponsored by La Gazetta? A newspaper can't give out an award.
  • "It is one of four "player of the year awards" needs citation.
  • Five paras for the lead is too much, either write a smaller introduction with some history and awardees sections or reduce the lead.
    •  Not done. Follows the format of other FL awards
      • Sure, well as per the December 2012 FLC, I'll oppose on this alone, regardless of the other details. I seem to recall suggesting you look at the Gordon Bennett Cup in air ballooning for inspiration on what is a suitable set of introductory sections for a list like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
        • Why would I look at that when there are existing basketball FLs? IMO, a basketball FL is a much better indicator of what this article should look like than a ballooning one. pbp 11:57 am, Today (UTC−8)
    •  Done pbp 21:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of players who won the award" grammar.
  • Nick Galis is Nikos Galis apparently.
    •  Fixed
  • Last para of the lead is unreferenced.
    •  Fixed

I'll look at the table if this lot gets sorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the things you're advocating fly in the face of current featured lists. Most other basketball award articles have at least four paragraphs of prose. While they have navboxes, they don't have infoboxes. pbp 19:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I get your point. I've made a partial review of this list, it's far below the standard I would expect to see as a featured list. If you want to work with me to address my concerns that's fine, if you'd rather not, fine too, I'll just leave my oppose and you can wait for other reviewers to weigh in and support you perspective. I'm sure you'll be happy either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Compare this to National Basketball Association Most Valuable Player Award. That's a FL and it's written and formatted almost exactly the same way this article is. If that's a FL, and Euroscar is written and formatted the same way as the NBA MVP, why shouldn't Euroscar be featured? Also, I consider the claim that 5 paragraphs is too much text to be completely arbitrary. pbp 20:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that comparing something a current FL which was promoted in 2008 (!) is really weak? Regardless, my opinion on this list is purely objective, based on the list itself and no other precedent. My suggestion to look at the Gordon Bennett list was to help you realise that you could write a nice intro, then some history etc before introducing the list itself. You don't like it? Whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man:, then put your money where your mouth is and nominate it for reassessment. Until you do, I consider your belief that an article shouldn't be FL solely because its prose is split into five paragraphs instead of four hideously pedantic, and would urge the closing admin to discount your vote for such silliness. pbp 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really, have as many hissy fits as you like, but right now I've only commented briefly on the lead, which is not suitable for Featured List status. Of course, feel free to ignore all of my comments and wait for others to comment, which I'm sure they will in a month or two. By the way, it's not a "closing admin" here, it's an FL delegate, perhaps you forgot where you were for a moment? It might be worthwhile you taking a moment to realise that it wasn't me who brought up comparisons with other FLs, it was you. I was purely objective, without comparison, until pressed. Deal with it, fix it, or leave it, whatever! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a potentially closing admin, I think The Rambling Man's comments need to be looked at closely, Purplebackpack89. They are good, and I would suggest trying to work with the reviewer and not against them. In terms of things like number of pars, see the final (by which I mean third) paragraph in the lead of WP:LEAD: "it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." (I've seen 5,000 word FAs which stick to a maximum of four paras, for example). No, newspapers cannot give out awards (the company behind them does, or the awards are drawn up by the paper's sports writers, or the newspaper sponsors the award, etc etc. TRM has left his rview in good faith, and I think you should take it as such. - SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat:, I have combined two of the paragraphs, so it should pass your muster. But I still think it's ridiculous to say that a ballooning FL is a better base template for this article than a basketball template. pbp 20:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim that at all. I suggested you looked at a decent FL which had a decent lead and intro section. If you don't want to do that simply because it doesn't relate to basketball, that's fine, that's your choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be better of you to say why you like the Bennett Cup's lead (or why you don't like the NBA awards' leads), and what you would change in this (or the NBA awards') lead. FWIW, I have read the Bennett Cup's lead, and after reading it continue to believe in the lack of inapplicability to this article. The Bennett Cup is a race in addition to a trophy, so you can fill a lead with notable races. Trophies for an entire year or season can't do that as much, which is why the NBA awards and this focus on distinctions. Do you want me to find more superlatives, like the guy who scored the most points in his Euroscar year (which would be a pain to find, as it's given year-to-year and contains parts of two seasons for each)? You want more people who did X the year they won the Euroscar? vpbp 21:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, it's simple, and I believe you were reminded of this several years ago. If the list is the main article about the award, the lead should be comprehensive and spend some time discussing the history and the winners. The reason I gave the Gordon Bennett FL as an example is because it took a hell of a lot to get it to FL, with a lot of research and made for a better page. If you're not interested in addressing my initial specific comments on the lead and would rather spend time arguing why you shouldn't, then I'll pass on reviewing the rest of the article. My oppose stands, but do remember, it's just my opinion, I'm sure you'll be able to find a bunch of other people who find my pedantic comments trivial and will support your list. It's a shame your apparent combative attitude clouds your ability to fix this up to a standard which I would consider featured quality: it's way off that right now. I won't be commenting further unless you demonstrate that you're content to work with me and deal with the comments I make in good faith. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just tell me what in particular you like about the Bennett Cup article that could be done on this one, or in NBA award articles? Do you want it to flow chronologically? Do you want the lead to impose some grand narrative? And maybe I wasn't acting in good faith earlier, but I am now. pbp 21:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The example I provided was simply to demonstrate that for an awards article which has no main article, you need to do more, discuss the winners, the origins of the award, etc etc. I don't know where "grand narrative" comes into it, but a decent lead and history section (like the GB cup I mentioned) would be great. If you can't do that, perhaps we need to think again about the nomination. On top of that are the many issues I already noted above. I haven't started to review the list itself. But right now I don't see much point in doing that. Again, I'll remind you that I'm just one voice here. I'm sure others will look at this list and think it's the best thing since sliced bread. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not entirely clear to me what you want. I'm working on figuring out why Gazzetto decided to throw the award in the first place, but I'm hampered by the fact that the source I need is likely in Italian. You've basically said, "It needs to be like this" and "it needs a decent lead", without giving me the information you would like to see. pbp 21:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, I've given far more points to correct than that. But yes, you're right to an extent, I want to see the history of the award expanded upon in the lead or better still, a history section. That's why I've given you an example of a featured list which took a lot of work but resulted in a great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected most of the grammatical and repetition errors. Does the stuff about multiple winners and distinctions go in the history section? pbp 22:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fleeting comments from Bencherlite (oppose, see below)
  • Avoid "currently", "most recent" etc - see WP:CURRENTLY. Use "as of" instead.
  • Image captions that are full sentences should end with a "." (see the Tony Parker image)
  • You have too many images - forcing two images to display in the lead with {{-}} leaves a massive area of white space before the "Award winners" section; and the images still bleed into the references section.
  • Having said that, the table of award winners is very narrow so you may be able to use {{multiple image}} to have 2 images side by side sometimes - have a go and see what it looks like.
  • When you've decided what images you want to keep, don't force the image size with |200px or similar
  • Can someone remind me what the current rule/practice is about flag icons? My instinct is to say they are inappropriate in the infobox at least per MOS:FLAG and in particular because those icons link to the national basketball teams, which are irrelevant here. I don't like them visually in the table but I couldn't say whether that's an appropriate usage. BencherliteTalk 22:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was able to fix a number of your concerns by removing Parker's pic (and Marc's). pbp 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bencherlite:, have you gotten a chance to take a second look at the article? pbp 22:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I have looked just now, and if you can't be bothered to address all the points I make in a short list, then why should I waste my time? BencherliteTalk 22:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Bencherlite:, Didn't I address all of those things, though? Or do you want me to tick off how I addressed each one? BTW, the reason I'm continuing to force size is because it looks best when all images are the same width. pbp 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Avoid "currently", "most recent" etc - see WP:CURRENTLY. Use "as of" instead. Not done. Image size forcing - not done because you know better than the MOS, it seems. Flag icons - no response, whether to agree or to disagree. And now I see you've added very poor prose such as For the first two decades of the award: 21 of the first 23 winners were born in the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. which manages to be wrong in terms of both grammar and mathematics at the same time, which is quite an achievement. I won't waste my time here. Oppose BencherliteTalk 22:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • "@Bencherlitr:, Currently" isn't used at all in the article, "most recent" was used once, but now is accompanied by an "as is". I replaced the colon in the sentence you cite with a comma. As for the flag question, I can't find an answer either way, though I have found that most international basketball-related templates do contain flags. Can you point me to the section of MOS/IMAGES where it says that image size shouldn't be forced? And can you be a little more civil? pbp 23:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my alleged lack of civility is entirely in your head, not my words, and your behaviour as a nominator is hardly going to attract further reviewers - honey, not vinegar, is best! "Currently" was in the article when I first looked; you've since removed it, along with the "most recent", thanks. I see you've now also removed the forced image sizes, thank you (WP:IMAGESIZE for future reference). In an effort to assist further, I've performed a mild copy-edit on the "history" section but unfortunately this just showed more problems - I ran into considerable difficulties in understanding how the assertions as to the current state of affairs could be derived from websites dating from 2009, or last accessed in 2012. I am at a loss to know why a website that has a title "Pau Gasol is 2008 European Player of the Year" is used twice in the article (once in the general references, once in the specific references) with the made-up title "History of the Award (to 2008)". I left a number of tags and hidden comments in that section to try and point out specifically the problems there. If you can deal with all these points, then we might get to a stage where considering the flags issue is a good use of my time. BencherliteTalk 00:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

I've looked exclusive at references and reference formatting, as is my habit for first-pass evaluations over at FAC.

  • In general: Websites are not cited in a consistent manner. Websites are varyingly listed in {{cite web}} as |work (correct) or |publisher (not so much). This will produce inconsistent metadata. Additionally, while you properly style gazetta.it as La Gazzetta dello Sport, many of the other websites are named by URL. Sometimes that's the correct choice, for when a website includes ".com" (or whatever) as part of their official titling (NBA.com, for example, appears to really be NBA.com; you need to have consistent capitalization, however); sometimes (as with Mundo Deportivo), it's not. Also, you are missing a lot of bibliographical data.
  • In the general references: The source you are citing as "History of the Award (to 2008)" has a publication date, but far more importantly, that's not at all what it's titled. I would oppose promotion for this issue alone. The Bob Bergum book is self-published, and is not a reliable source. Also, to be pedantic, ISBN-13 is strongly preferred over ISBN-10 at this point; I wouldn't fail over just that (and this book isn't acceptable sourcing regardless), but it's very easy to convert old ISBNs to the new standard. The third general source is a forum post, which is not a reliable source (it appears to be repeating information from La Gazzetta dello Sport, so might be replaceable, but that doesn't solve the immediate problem).
  • In the specific references: The "Stojakovic" source has a publication date available. The "El Barça" source has both a byline and a publication date available. The "CSKA Moscow" source has a byline and a publication date. The Ballin' Europe source is not correctly targeted (the correct URL is this one), and has an uncited byline; also, I'm not particularly convinced that it consistutes a reliable source (and since it seems to just be repeating information from La Gazzetta dello Sport, it should be replaceable).

There may be other problems, as I did not make an effort to be comprehensive once the state of the referencing was apparent. The malformed citations and missing bibliographical data are relatively easy fixes. The use of non-RS sources as general references, however, cannot be remedied easily. I'm troubled by the significant reference with a misrepresented title as well; I want to assume it's somehow accidental, but it's very close to what I'd consider source manipulation, and so suggests that a very thorough vetting of sources would be needed before I could reconsider my stance here, even if replacements for the non-RS material were forthcoming. Accordingly, I oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first FLC for this article also raised concerns about the reliability of InterBasket which, as best as I can tell, have never been responded to. I'm neutral on that particular issue, as the article's other problems are fatal to promotion regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Further review of InterBasket leads me to believe that even its non-forum content does not constitute a reliable source. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It just can't be reliable - it's a blog post on a forum. Interestingly, though, it talks about 2nd and 3rd place awards, which aren't mentioned in the article. Either nobody is named as runner-up / in third place, in which case the source is completely discredited, or people are named in such positions, and the article is incomplete. Either way, it's yet another serious problem. Suggest withdrawal as all the problems listed above by Squeamish Ossifrage, added to those I've noted, show that this is not within shooting distance of being an example of Wikipedia's best work. BencherliteTalk 14:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are other uses of InterBasket that aren't just a forum post. The previous FLC seemed uncertain whether the site's news reporting was reliable. It's on that topic that I'm neutral, although the site's about page does not inspire confidence. Looking back over the InterBasket sources, I note that the "Parker Wins Euroscar" source is also improperly titled (actually "10 NBA Players from Around the World (01/09)"). I'm going to have to echo the suggestion for withdrawal. Any effort to correct the sourcing situation is going to require sufficient rebuilding as to render it a different article than appears here at current. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bencherlite:, @Squeamish Ossifrage:: Near as I can figure, InterBasket is an international equivalent to CBSSports.com or Bleacher Report. As for the 2nd and 3rd-place information, there is no award per se given to people who finish second in the voting, but there still are people who finish second in the voting, and people might actually want to know who they are, albeit not enough to actually put that information in the article. In regards to why I have adopted titles different than those of the webpages they link to, it's mostly because the articles' titles don't illustrate why they are being used as sources for particular matters, and won't generate interest for readers to follow them. pbp 18:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
InterBasket is not much like Bleacher Report. Although it has a few other editors, it is, by its own admission, primarily the efforts of two guys who parlayed a Yahoo Group into a website. Bleacher Report, on the other hand, is a division of Turner Sports, and can reasonably be expected to have editorial oversight. As for changing the titles of sources in order to make them more interesting, let me put this in the clearest terms possible: do not do that. You must cite sources accurately. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to what SO said. Plus how anyone could think that this is a reliable source for anything is beyond me. It's a list in a forum post with no sources from some random bloke using a pseudonym "Önder". BencherliteTalk 19:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove that one if you want. pbp 19:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Necessary but not sufficient. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage:, there is currently at least one reliable source indicating the winners of the award in any given year. And, @Bencherlite:, I've also addressed most of your sourcing concerns with the prose. pbp 16:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 award doesn't appear referenced. 2007 is cited to InterBasket, which, again, I don't think is a reliable source with editorial oversight. 2011 to Ballin' Europe, likewise. Beyond that, at the FLC level, it is not enough that some sources are reliable; all sources used for the article must meet the standards of WP:RS. And there's still problems with citation formatting and missing bibliographical data, and I haven't even really looked at the prose. I'm sorry, Purplebackpack89, I appreciate the work that's gone into this, but I really don't think this is ready for FLC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2015 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Euroscar/archive2&oldid=653320868"