Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Edgar Martínez Award/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 21:47, 24 October 2011 [1].

Edgar Martínez Award edit

Edgar Martínez Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the featured list criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5
Comments from KV5
  • Tables need row-header markup, captions, etc., per WP:ACCESS; see MOS:DTT for more details.
  • Year ranges like "1997-98" should use en-dashes instead of hyphens.
  • Link Safeco Field.
  • All captions are complete sentences and thus need periods/full stops.
  • No stats in the table? It seems very dry without them. Perhaps it would help to support the idea that the player was the "best" designated hitter in any given year.
  • Remove spaces between daggers and their entries.
  • Replace Unicode daggers with {{dagger}} and use appropriate alt text per WP:ACCESS.
  • Remove superscript from asterisks as they are already superscripted by nature.
  • In the lead, after you have named the teams with three or more players, I don't think it is necessary to enumerate all of the teams with two award winners; that is to say, leave the team names, but the player names can be removed. If the reader wants to see that in-depth, he can look at the list proper.
  • The lead is currently 5 short paragraphs; I think some could be combined to get a solid 3.
  • In the "See also" section:
  • Re-format dates in references to either US or UK date formatting instead of ISO.

That's all for me for now. — KV5 • Talk • 21:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good ideas. I'm on it and will let you know when I've completed those changes. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Unless you think the table needs a caption, which I think would be redundant with the section title. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the table captions are important, but for a definitive answer, I would query User:RexxS. Couple of things from after the edits:
  • Can't use bold to indicate a league leader per MOS:BOLD. I suggest italics instead.
  • Dagger template should still be superscripted.
  • Row-headers aren't showing as headers; this is because the code line for the header (the player name) still starts with a pipe instead of an exclamation point. So that would complete that.
  • Key needs row-header markup too.

Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 11:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table captions are normally a welcome improvement to the accessibility of a table, particularly as a screen reader like JAWS can call up a list of all the table captions on a page and allow the user to jump directly to a desired table. However, Graham87 tells me that he tends to navigate our articles by calling up a list of section headings in JAWS and going directly to the appropriate section. What this means for us is that if a table is (more or less) the first element in a section, then screen readers gain hardly anything from a table caption if it merely duplicates the preceding section heading – and you may attract criticism from sighted viewers for effectively creating redundant content. We need to be sensitive to the issue that improvements for the disabled may result in making things worse for the sighted, as we have to maintain cooperation between all users to advance the accessibility agenda in an effective manner.
Tldr summary: I wouldn't insist on captions directly below headers if the caption only repeats the section header. In this case Key and List of winners are the most likely captions and that means you could omit captions here without any real loss of accessibility. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you RexxS. That means I've completed all of KV5's suggested changes successfully. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support — KV5 • Talk • 11:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Bagumba (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Bagumba
  • Why a column for hits instead of the more traditional batting average? Or perhaps standardize with List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter and include AVG, OBP, and SLG.—Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took guidance from Hank Aaron Award, which used the same three stats I used here. I'm open to changing it to a different statistic if that would be an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aside from the magic 200-hit mark, it seems hits in a season aren't as notable as BA. Further addition of OBP and SLG would be even better still.—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree. I think that hits are appropriate here, as the player's position is a designated hitter. — KV5 • Talk • 11:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Considering that the lead makes mention of Edgar's career BA, HR and RBI (because the ref'd article mentions those stats), maybe I should switch out hits for BA? Or should I add something else in addition? Hits and BA would be redundant. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Whoops, still drinking my morning coffee here. I thought his stats were mentioned in the Seattle Times article about how the award was being renamed for him. Those stats are sourced by B Ref and I believe were chosen by someone else before I started working on this page, so I'm not married to them. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I would support at a minimum swapping hits with BA. Sampling the sources in the article that announce the last four winners of Guerrero, Lind, Huff, and Ortiz, none of them mention their hits for that season. 4/4 mention BA, 3/4 SLG, and 1/4 OBP.—Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  1. The article title should also be mentioned and bolded in the first sentence and noted as its common name.
  2. Redirects should exist for official and alternative names.
  3. Reorder the content of first paragraph with the second. Explain to the reader who currently awards it and how before discussing previous association with AP and why its now named after Martinez.
  4. Remove the listing of teams with 2-time winners. Its already large with seven teams, and is only going to become larger and less significant over the years (not to mention overhead of remembering to maintain the trivia).
  5. I sorted the table by team and thought at first that the lead was incorrect. Then I realized that maybe the lead should mention teams by how many times their players have won the award (as opposed to number of players who have won.)
  6. For MLB.com references, publisher should be MLB Advanced Media.
  7. For newspaper references (e.g. Seattle Times, Providence Journal), use "newspaper" param instead of "work" and "publisher".
  8. Boston Herald reference should add {{subscription required}}.
  9. Reference to All bat, no glove: a history of the designated hitter should use "pages" parameter instead of "page" in cite tempate.
  10. No need for "Footnote" section, include the footnote at the bottom of "List of winners". Otherwise, per WP:ORDER, notes go after "See also"
  11. Remove (1) from players in the list from their first instance if they won multiple times, as in Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award. Otherwise, its not immediately intuitive why other 1-time winners don't have (1) also.
  12. I've never found it in MOS, but I have seen on other pages where editors comment that consecutive citations should be in numerical order (e.g. for Edgar Martinez entry use [2][5] and not [5][2].
  13. Remove the external link per WP:ELNO, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." There isnt any added value to this link. Alternatively, it can be cited as a reference.
  14. Is this considered an official MLB award? Just wondering since Selig made the announcement of the rename. If so, relevant navbox can be added.
  15. See also section
    1. Worth mentioning above that Ortiz won the Hank Aaron Award in 2005 as the top overall hitter, not just top DH. Aaron Award can then be removed from "See also"
    2. Silver Slugger not needed; one can get to it from inside List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter.
    3. Remove Major League Baseball Triple Crown removed as it's not an award and not directly related.
    4. This Year in Baseball Awards not needed when there is already a link to Baseball awards, unless there is evidence it is more relevant than other awards. They are handed out by MLB.com, which for whatever reason (marketing?) is a separate entity from MLB awards.
    5. List List of Major League Baseball awards before more generic Baseball Awards

—Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I will get to them on Monday, as I'll be unable to edit much if at all this weekend. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question you asked, no this is not considered an official MLB award. I know it becomes confusing considering that it was Selig who announced the award would be renamed, but the award is maintained by BBWAA, not MLB.
I have completed your suggested changes with one exception, and that regards the "See Also". KV5 suggested adding the list of DH Silver Sluggers, and now you're suggesting I take it out. Which should I follow? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was suggesting to leave List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter but remove Silver Slugger. I dont think that is in conflict with KV5.—Bagumba (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose not. I've removed it, so you can consider your suggestions completely incorporated. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup comments (some are new, some I might only be noticing now):
Convention:Suggested add suggested delete

  1. "... in the American League (AL) in Major League Baseball (MLB)since 1973." Should mention MLB early in the lead, otherwise non-baseball fans wouldnt figure out for a long time this is a baseball article.
  2. "The Outstanding Designated Hitter Aaward is voted on by club beat reporters, broadcasters and AL public relations departments.": No need to mention original name again.
  3. "The Boston Red Sox players have won the most Edgar Martínez Awards with eight": more accurate
  4. Clicking on footnote "a" for 1994 row doesnt bring me to the footnote. Missing a {{reflist}}?
  5. dont need a bullet for the footnote at end of table
  6. "In addition to Martínez, David Ortiz has won the award five times." Didnt realize the significance at first reading, but I guess its the most times anyone has won. Should mention in the previous Martinez paragraph.
  7. "In addition to Martínez, David Ortiz has also won the award five times, all in consecutive seasons (2003–2007). Ortiz won his five Edgar Martínez Awards in consecutive years.": combine sentences, Ortiz's years werent mentioned before
  8. "Other repeat winners of the Edgar Martínez Awardaward include three-time winner Hal McRae (1976, 1980, and 1982), and two-time winners Willie Horton (1975 and 1979), Greg Luzinski (1981 and 1983), Don Baylor (1985 and 1986), Harold Baines (1987 and 1988), Dave Parker (1989 and 1990), and Paul Molitor (1993 and 1996)" reword

—Bagumba (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except the comment about adding Ortiz to the earlier paragraph. I feel that it flows well as is, with the first paragraph about the award, the second paragraph about the award namesake, and the third paragraph about other winners, with Ortiz listed first because he has tied Edgar (and for all we know, could surpass him with his sixth award for this season). If you insist, I'll try to find a way to rewrite it, but I feel it's better as is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to convey was that the Martinez paragraph should say that five is the most times ever won. Then when we get to the part about Ortiz, we would know implicitly that Ortiz is tied for the most also.—Bagumba (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I can do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support All concerns addressed.—Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment Support – Only thing I see is that the lead photo's caption has a glaring redundancy: "Edgar Martinez, for whom the award is named, won the award...". Double "award"s here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The caption has been changed to remove the redundancy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been six days since anyone has posted here? Are we done, closing admin? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 21 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Edgar_Martínez_Award/archive1&oldid=1143879556"