Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nashville Vols all-time roster/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 Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [1].
Nashville Vols all-time roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the critera to be recognized as a Featured List. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*I see some last-name-only players in the list; when I went to a general reference to find out more about them, I was presented with five general references, with no indication what was different between them. Are they proper for a specific timespan? If so, that needs to be clarified. You can't expect the reader to surf five similar links to find a bit of information. --Golbez (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Two more things: One, does this really need to be split into four tables? Two, many of the names have been wisely blacklinked but there's still a few redlinks, but they all appear to be for people who went on to the MLB, so that makes sense, it makes sense they'd have articles some day, whereas the blacklinks are much less likely. So no complaint on that one, just more of a statement of acknowledgment. But still, #1! --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have combined them into one. It was split into four tables to ease load times during editing. Of course there shouldn't be a need to edit the table extensively as no one will be added. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, I've been there. Support. There's a lot of empty space on the right but I'm not sure I want to say "add a few dozen more pictures". Certainly not going to cut off support for it. --Golbez (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have combined them into one. It was split into four tables to ease load times during editing. Of course there shouldn't be a need to edit the table extensively as no one will be added. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – I think this is a nice list, and I like the many old photos of the players.
The one thing I will say is that the MLB affiliations part is a bit of an odd fit with the rest of that paragraph. Not too sure what can be done about it, though. Maybe move it to the next paragraph?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for the suggestion. I started a new paragraph with the affiliation part. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- The lead seems to jump right in, without having that original introduction sentence. I'd tweak wording, something like "The Nashville Vols were a minor league franchise that played in Nashville..."
- "All minor league teams are affiliated with a Major League Baseball team." not true actually; it wasn't until about the 60s that all minor league teams became part of major league farm systems. Reword.
Only issues I have; fix and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some changes. How does it look now? NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a quick revisit and nothing more to fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 13 January 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.