Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Arizona Diamondbacks seasons

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 User:Matthewedwards 20:11, 11 October 2008 [1].

---

Arizona Diamondbacks seasons

I based the format of the article off of Boston Red Sox seasons which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 19:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Oppose+Comments - fails Cr 1,2,4, and 5

• The Arizona Diamondbacks are a professional baseball team based in Phoenix, Arizona. - no need to bold Arizona Diamondbacks since they aren't the subject of the list itself. So you can just go ahead and link it (no bold).

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Diamondbacks are a member of both the Major League Baseball’s (MLB) National League Western Division and of the National League (NL) itself. - no need for the second of.

Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• From 1998 to the present, the Diamondbacks have played in Chase Field (formerly named "Bank One Ballpark"). - the present? Would be better worded as Since 1998, the Diamondbacks have played in Chase Field..etc

Changed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• The "Diamondback" name, based off of the Western diamondback snake, was chosen among thousands of entries that were received from a contest to name the team --> The name "Diamondback"

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Arizona made their Major League debut in 1998, where they, along with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays were an expansion team. - why is it important to say that the Devils were also an expansion team?

Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• After a losing first season, - do you mean After losing their first season,?

Changed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Arizona's 2000 season was disappointed, with the Diamondbacks finishing 3rd in the National League West. - disappointed IMO is not maintaining a NPOV. Would be better stated as Arizona's 2000 season ended with the Diamondbacks finishing third (not 3rd).

Changed

• However, the following year saw Arizona ride to the top of the league, and beat the New York Yankees, four games to three, to win the 2001 World Series.
  • Do not begin a sentence with However, it is not grammatically correct.
  • Ride to the top of the league? Very wordy, how about The following year, however, Arizona defeated the New York Yankess four game to three to win the 2001 World Series?

Changed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the following four seasons, the Diamondbacks didn;t make it into the playoffs once,[9][10][11][12], and had their worst season ever in 2004, where they won only 51 games and lost 111, giving them a 0.315 winning percentage.
  • Typo in didn't.
  • No need to say once, already established that it is the next four seasons that they did not go to the playoffs.
  • their worst season ever is also not adhering to a NPOV, how about, this followed with them winning only 51 games (a 0.315 winning percentage) in 2004.?

I'll just removed the whole 2004 winning percentage thing all together. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Surprisingly though, Arizona won their division in 2007, but lost in the National League Championship Series to the wild card Colorado Rockies. - again NPOV, Remove surprisingly. Would be better worded as Arizona would, however, win their division in 2007, but only to lose to the Colorado Rookies in the National League Championship series. (No need to say wild card, irrelevant).

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• The table needs to be in it's own section.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Try to squeeze a table of contents, make the key a separate section and add a see also section.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the table, what is meant by Games behind?

Games behing division leader, changed template --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Did not make playoffs - I think instead of writing this, it would be better worded with an em dash.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Because they only were in the National League West, it's redundant to link it over and over.

De-linked --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused, what is the reference section verifying versus what the source if verifying?
  • If the source is a main source, it would benefit having that as a general reference in the reference section.

The one source at the bottom of the table gives a brief overview of the Diamondbacks season-by-season results, the others get more specific. I'll go ahead and make it a general reference--Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Because you abbreviate the Divisional series, you should include the abbreviation in the prose to avoid confusion.

Added into key --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 23:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• The following year, however, Arizona defeated the New York Yankees four game to three to win the 2001 World Series.[7] typo in game, needs to be plural.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the following four seasons, the Diamondbacks didn't make it into the playoffs once.[9][10][11][12] - don't have to say once, already known that during the 4 seasons they did not make it.--S_RX 14:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - after my issues being resolved, I feel it meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 21:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why not do it the modern way: instead of the hidden links to single years, which no one will click, make the first one explicit, and a gateway to all of its sibling articles. That way, you don't waste valuable blue, which dilutes the high-value links. So, instead of that silly template—Since {{Baseball Year|1998}}, try "Since Since [[1998 in Baseball|the 1998 baseball season]] ... Tony (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but you did it to the second occurrence, and haven't removed all of the other blue years that look like plain useless year-links. Tony (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I got it now --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments

• Current ref 3 (ARIZONA ...) the link title is in all capitals, per the MOS we dont do that even when the original is in all capitals.

Fixed caps --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I'd like to see some things fixed before I support...

• "The name "Diamondback" was inspired by the Western diamondback snake, was..." isn't grammatically correct - either change the comma to 'and' or the 'was' to a comma, so it reads one of:
  • "The name "Diamondback", inspired by the Western diamondback snake, was..."
  • "The name "Diamondback" was inspired by the Western diamondback snake and was..."

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "and made it to the National League Division Series were they..." - where not were.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The following season, Arizona just missed the playoffs, after the National League West has won the Los Angeles Dodgers." - has won? should be was won. Also not sure if the commas here are correct, but I'm terrible with them myself so would like someone else to weigh in here if possible :)

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think I'd prefer if the links to NLDS/NLCS/World Series linked to that year's version, not the page for them (ie 1999 National League Division Series#Arizona Diamondbacks vs. New York Mets instead of NLDS).

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Might be worth adding somewhere what the team's all-time record is, although I must admit I don't know where you can source this (I've been trying to find one for the Giants for a while but nowhere, not even b-r, seems to have it unless I'm going blind).

I'll look for it --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I haven't been able to find a source with the all-time win-loss record. I found with the win-loss record of all Arizona's managers, my understanding is that adding that up would be original research. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Award winners on the team would be a good addition: other featured seasons lists have this (see Yankees, Cards).

I'll look for that --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Awards have been added --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than that it looks good. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't like some of the grammar, even though some was taken from the Red Sox FL. For example:
  • The Diamondbacks are a member of both the Major League Baseball’s (MLB) National League Western Division and the National League (NL) itself. " Isn't the division a subset of the league? A better alternative might be "A member of the... National League (NL) Western Division."
  • "Arizona made their Major League debut in the 1998 baseball season, where they were an expansion team." This could be simplified by saying, "Arizona made their Major League debut as an expansion team in the 1998 baseball season".
  • This is more of a general question, but do all those things in the lead need sourcing? They are repeated in the table below, and any reader wanting verification can just go to the refs in the table. --Golbez (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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