Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York Yankees/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] New York Yankees

This is the second time I am nominating this article. The first time around it was really a mess, so me and a lot of other people have done a lot of work on it. I realize it is still 75 KB long, but this is the Yankees we are talking about here. There is just too much to write to keep it as short as some of the other FA's are. It has a lot of good content and I think it is organized very well, so I give it my support. Sportskido8 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Plenty still to do before this reaches featured status, including unresolved issues from the last FAC.
    • Poorly referenced.
    • Still too long. If need be, split the history to History of the New York Yankees, and use summary style.
    • The information in "quick facts" should be written as prose in relevant sections rather than as a loosely linked list of trivia. Oldelpaso 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Reasons for objection have been already stated by the above poster. If you want to see how an American-centric sports team article should look then, I recommend you to view the New England Patriots article which is well referenced in terms of contents and images. The Patriots' history section has been spun-off to cut down the file size. The images on the New York Yankees article are also lacking proper copyright information. Are you sure the Image:WhiteyF.jpg, Image:GeorgeS.jpg, and various photos in the article are licensed GFDL? --Who What Where Nguyen Why 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. In addition to the above: Jeronimo 20:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • To much lists/tables without prose. Some of these do belong in the article, but need some additional text. Others should be spun-off, such as the season-by-season overview.
    • The "Quick facts" section is just horrible and unencyclopedic. Some of it can be grouped into new sections, moved to existing ones, while some facts aren't for this article.
    • Current roster is unnecessary and to much focussed on present-day, and should be spun of to a separate article.
    • We don't learn anything at all about the team's popularity, spectators numbers, tv viewers, etc.
  • Monster Object. There are far too many Red Sox fans out there who vandalize this article. Heck, it's almost as vandalized as Bush. Should this be a featured article, it will receive a barrage of attackers and protesters. --How dare you? 17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And there are as many other editors ready to revert back and attempt to get S-Protect. Oh yeah, and my vote is object. See above comments, especially those about the images, by other editors. Try a peer review first. -- Win777 21:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well still it would be an offense to Red Sox fans - with this said featured articles should never be of well-renowned sports teams. --How dare you? 01:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how vandalism should get a say in what does or doesn't merit being a Featured Article. If editors put in the dedication and work to get it to Featured Article quality, then it should be a Featured Article. If some fans of an opposing team are too immature to accept it, they can be IP banned after they begin vandalizing, or they can do the constructive thing and get the opposing team's article to FA status. I strongly oppose any suggestion that vandalism should have a say in what does or doesn't get to become a Featured Article. That's just begging for vandals to play their hand. Ryu Kaze 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok then. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Bush/archive1 for more information on this matter though. --How dare you? 14:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object — Per reasons below (except when identified as a suggestion rather than a point of objection):
    • The "Quick facts" section needs to be turned into prose and distributed elsewhere as appropriate. At the moment, it's just a trivia section under another name. If you can't find applicable sections to include all the information, you may have to lose some of it, I'm sorry to say. Sometimes you have to make painful cuts in situations such as this
    • Way too limited use of references. The most you have references for at the moment is the current roster. I don't know how much info that book you mention at the bottom has, but if it has a lot of the information being presented in the article, there should be more frequent indications of exactly where this information applies and from where in the book. Also, ideally, there should be more than one such reference in the creation of an article. If it's the best you've got, then it's the best you've got, but at least provide a better indication of which info's coming from the book. References shouldn't go all the way at the end of an article, by the way. They're supposed to fall between "See also" and "External links"
    • (Note: striking, as editor has made attempt at supplying explanation behind source; verification for source still pending) Image licensing issues mentioned above. We can't just accept that a random editor on the encyclopedia was given a GFDL for these things without some kind of verifiability. There's not even a source on the images
    • (Clarification based on nominator's response below: this one was meant more as a recommendation for straightening the article up a bit, rather than actual grounds for objection; I certainly understand that length has no bearing on quality and — as the nominator strongly believes this section remaining intact to be vital to the integrity of the article — I withdraw it as even a suggestion) The article's of an unnecessary length because of the history section. That needs to become an article to itself, with a summarized form used here
    • (Note: meant as a suggestion for style improvement) "Team captains" should probably be placed in a spot it would mesh better. Perhaps before the "Current roster" section
    • (Note: meant more as a suggestion than grounds for objection) While on the subject of the current roster, lose the section sub-headers for it in the Table of Contents. They don't contribute to navigation. Also, maybe try to get some more info on the current roster. As it stands, it's just a list. Maybe mention some of the decision-making that went into selecting them
    • (Note: again, more of a suggestion to improve overall quality; not a point of ojbection) As with the current roster's section, maybe add some additional info on a few of these guys in the Hall of Famers section in prose form
The article has a long way to go, but with some dedication — and taking into account the issues raised here — I can see it getting there. Good luck. Ryu Kaze 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to critics. Ok, you're right about the references. I didn't see that it only had one reference, and that's pretty bad. I didn't write a lot of the article and I have absolutely no way of tracing back to where it came from. But I disagree that it is too long. For some reason there is this notion that great articles can't be longer than 35 KB. But that's why tables of contents were invented. If you people were book publishers you would've told Tolstoy to make War and Peace 300 pages long. The "history" of the Yankees just seems too important to spin off as a separate article. I don't see how this can be done.
Quick facts...that can probably be done away with, but most sports teams articles have it and I figured it was standard. That can be done away with though. The images all have proper permission too, I was lazy and didn't write it down. Please leave them there.
As for the 4th poster...you really make no sense at all. Nobody is stopping the Red Sox fans from trying to make THEIR article featured. In fact they already got the Patriots featured. Sports teams should never be featured huh? If that's so then you can make a case for any other article in the world. And how the hell can you object to an article because it would be "an offense to Red Sox fans". Sorry pal, but you sound like one there. There is definitely a group who objects to every single featured article every day of the week. Don't give me this "we stick up for Red Sox fans" crap. If they don't like it then too bad. I would like to thank the first 3 editors (and the last one) for their constructive criticism. The 4th one, How Dare You, was simply unhelpful.


P.S. It is a matter of perspective about what constitutes a "featured article", and after looking at the New England Patriots one, I am not impressed, nor do I feel that the Yankees page should be modeled after it. It is WAY too short, contains too much text, and is not that informative. The fact that the team's history was split up does not do it any good. If you ask 100 different random, people on the street (who don't like either team) if the Yankees article is better than the Patriots one, I bet that 80 out of the 100 would say yes. But yeah, Wikipedia has all these guidelines, so it's tough. Quick Facts was fixed by the way.Sportskido8 12:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You're welcome for the input, but please try not to respond quite so defensively. I realize you've put in some work here and probably gained an attachment, but it's best to try remaining cool and explaining your position.
I do agree that the history of the team is very important, and I certainly wouldn't object on the basis of the length of that section. I mentioned that mainly as a further recommendation to help in straightening the article out a bit, not as an actual flaw. I'll remove that from my list of objection material, as that was more of a recommendation than a point of objection. I'm certainly not someone who thinks that articles should be under 40kb. You only need take a look at several articles I've gotten to FA status or have worked on that are currently in FAC (such as Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy VIII, Chrono Trigger or Shadow of the Colossus) to see that I'm certainly not one who confuses quality with length. I apologize if I offended you in this regard, and apologize for not having been clear.
As for the images, I'm not about to try to remove them. I just felt that they should meet proper criteria, and you certainly should be given the opportunity to supply it. I see that you cite Dave Fleming as the source of the images. I'm not doubting you on that. I'm just curious as to whether or not you have a means of verifying it for other editors. As things stand, only you know it with absolute certainty. What if you never worked on the article again? Other editors wouldn't know or have any means of defending that position. We need to create articles with this concern in mind.
You said you fixed the Quick facts section, but both it and a Trivia section are there now. There's good information, but the style of presentation is highly discouraged.
I've struck out several things, by the way, or clarified some other points. Basically, my objection is mainly in effect at this point on the basis of references and the trivia materials' presentation. Some more info on the current roster or some of the Hall of Famers would be nice, but the references and trivia stuff are the most important thing. If you can get that, I'd be pretty much satisfied and would strike the objection itself, though I also think the article could benefit from some coverage of the team's popularity if you can get it. Like I said, I can see this making it to FA, but it's going to need a bit of elbow grease. Ryu Kaze 23:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object - This page is a disaster. It is too long, poorly organized, constantly vandalized, and confusing to the reader. I would start it over from scratch. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Vandalism doesn't actually play into the stability stipulation of Wikipedia:What is a featured article? Stability implies that the article's content doesn't change significantly on a day-to-day basis (prior to the beginning of FAC; changes during FAC are expected) and that the article isn't currently the subject of ongoing edit wars or disputes concerning content. Ryu Kaze 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't exactly call it a disaster, or confusing. But thanks.Sportskido8 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)