Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame

< 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 23:20, 16 May 2008.

Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame

edit

I bring before the community another Green Bay Packers list. Although I feel the list meets our standards, suggestions for improvement are always accepted, and any improvements will be made quickly and effectively. Thank you for your time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Right away, first thing I see: Absolutely no references in the lead section. That has to change. There should be at least one at the end of each paragraph, and probably more in this case.
  • In the lead, you say "...plaques representing each of the 137 inductees...As of 2008, the Packers Hall of Fame has inducted 137 people" That seems redundant. Maybe you could take out one or the other?
  • Could you provide a key? I know the positions are linked, but I think for easy reference, a key preceding the list would be great.
  • I think all the notes should have proper formatted references. Or, even better, have a footnotes sections with references (check this list to see what I mean).
  • For compound information involving numbers (26 years, 137 people, etc.), use   in between the number and the word.

Noble Story (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I knocked a few out of the way for now, bur rl is calling. I ill get to the rest tonight, thank you for your comments. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have addressed your concerns. Any more suggestions would be greatly appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment Good work so far, especially on adding the notes. However, instead of using the main page of the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame website over and over again, how about linking to the inductees separate pages? Noble Story (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am conflicted with this. First off, I changed the link in the citation so that is goes to here instead of here. See the thing is, that I could do a direct cite of each page, but that would mean that there would be 26 references under the "References" section that would go to basically the same website. I mean I have no problem doing that, but I don't know if it is worth it. Do you have any ideas on how th best way to do this? Or if it is needed? Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is definitely worth it. After all, the information about the person is not really on the main page, it's on their individual pages. I think the rule of thumb would be to cite links that are as specific as possible. Noble Story (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Direct references have been added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we to presume that this is all a US thing? Need that A word somewhere up top.
  • Why are simple unpiped years linked? Please do not do that; we want to focus people on the useful links.
  • First and third images are colliding with the list, on my browser.
    • This is probably your browser or settings in your preferences. Try going to your preferences, click on the Files tab, and lower the default size of thumbnail pics. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for using alpha order and not chronological order?
    • Yes, I thought about both, and the reason I chose alpha was that someone can easily find a name on the list, and with the sorting function they can easily find a specific year. If I wouldve done it the other way, people would've still been able to search through the years, but it wouldve been a lot harder to use the sort function for names because it would have sorted through the first name and not the last. Hope that answers your question. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to think of ways to sectionalise the list so the pics can be positioned at the start or finish each segment (of a decade or two?).
    • Again, I think this may be just a problem on your browser or with your settings, personally breaking the list up (imho) would be detremintal because the sort function would be lost « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would solve the problem of having to squash the table to make room for the pics; it would be much nicer not to have the year ranges wrap.

TONY (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope you dont mind Tony that I moved your comments around. It is easier for me to just see a list of stuff, then I can respond to each point. As I to Noble Story I got as much done as I could for now, and I will address any more comments or suggestions later tonight. Thank you for your comments, cheers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonzo: It's good.
    • Year-range wrapping: "1931–32, 1934–35"—the "35" is on a second line, with the en dash hanging. In fact, why not force "1931–32, 1934–35" all down onto the second line, with the break-line code. I see a few more, too. Or you may be able to rob from the "Inductee" column, which is unnecessarily wide, to widen the "Years with the team" column to avoid this hangover, and thus make all rows single. And a wrong hyphen after 1971.
    • "in the teams history"—apostrophe?
    • The images no longer collide with the table; I like my images large, so I'll try to avoid resetting from the thumbnail 300px and the 10 thousand squared. Browser is Safari; IE, heck, I'd never use that, and 7 is supposed to be no better. Have you tried Safari for Windows? Good reviews. Support. TONY (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Ah heck, I see: when I widen my window, the columns all stretch (a narrow window last time was causing the pic/table overlap, too, I see). Even so, you might still play with the column sizes, since you can rob from one to pay the other and make the appearance better for all users whose windows open a little less wide. TONY (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Any reason why the image isn't "thumbed" with a caption?
  • "Enshrined in " sounds a little over the top - you used "inducted" in the lead so I'd stick with that.
  • Just a note, I have no problems with the images at all, until I reduce my horizontal resolution to around 300 pixels, then all three images appear above the table (I'm currently using IE7, bleugh).
  • [3] is .com, all others are .org.
  • Personal but not keen on central justification for names. At all.
    • Question, personally Im no big fan of it either, but would you like the whole table left-aligned, or just the name column. Personally, if I just left-align the name column it looks weird, and Im not a big fan of left-aligning the whole table, any thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @
      • I think just left aligning the name will look fine. But if it helps, you could left align the "Years" as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any of those red links going to be blue ever? There are several...
    • Um, currently there are 16 redlinks, with maybe 4 that I would be fairly confident creating an article on, other than that most of the executives or supporters are not really notable enough outside of the team. Right now I am confident that every notable person on the list has an article. I will look into maybe creating some strong stubs for the couple I feel are notable enough. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @
  • Since the table's sortable, you should wikilink positions on every row.
  • Not 100% clear what "Years" means.
  • "1929–33, 35–36" I'd prefer to see "1929–33, 1935–36"
  • Same for other isolated two digit years.
  • "G.M." used twice without explanation and, inconsistently, with periods.
    • The first instance is linked to General Manager, and both look like G.M. so I'm not sure what you mean by the second part. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understand it's linked, but I'd use "General Manager" first then G.M. afterwards. The second bit I was talking about was the use of periods in this abbreviation while not in any other abbreviations in the entire article. Just looked anomalous. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • HoF used without explanation. I know, it's simple, but.... I linked it to Hall of Fame, does that work?

That's my starter for 10... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think I have gotten everything except for the red-links, which I will work on tomorrow. Im going to sleep though (its 2am here on the West Coast). Thanks for the review, any more comments are welcome! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Well-written, well-cited, complete, and understandable. I've got a few questions, however. Why is the key in a separate section? IMHO, as an integral part of the table of inductees, it should be included in that section, rather than set apart. Second, I'm a little hinky on the title of the article — you've focused mainly on the inductees into the Packers' HoF, rather than the Hall itself. With that in mind, wouldn't a better title be "Inductees of the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame"? With that change, you'd be able to create an article entitled "Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame" that could include all sorts of information about the construction, history, and the like, without overwhelming the list of inductees that you've created here. I'm afraid that as more information about the hall's history gets added here, it will overwhelm the list, thus making it kind of odd to be considered a featured list. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(JKBrooks85 I bolded your support so it can be seen a little easier) Thank you, to answer your questions: the key is in a separate section because it seems to be what most American football (and sports-related lists for that matter) do it. Personally I don't care, I could just move the key below the Inductees section and get rid of the Key section, but it does seem to be how most lists do it. To answer your second question, I had actually thought about this a lot. The main reason that I chose to do it this way was how my sources did it, which titles it "GB Packers HoF," has a short section on the HoF, and focuses on the inductees. I don't think it would be a benefit to break this list into a list and an article, just because the article wouldn't be much more than the lead thats in this list. There really isn't a lot of sourcing or info out there explaining about the construction of the Hall, other than trivial facts which really aren't notable enough to be noted. Hope this addresses your concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my concerns. I also see that most of the inductees have articles of their own, so it would be counterintuitive to expand on the individuals as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know you just changed it to this, but I don't like the putting different year spans (i.e. 1959–66; 1971–2004) on different lines. I just don't like the look of inconsistent row heights, is there any way to solve the problem without putting them on two separate lines? Maybe force the column to be a little wider? -RunningOnBrains 00:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problem was column width. He just didn't like how the multiple year ranges were not easily discernible. By putting them on separate rows, this made it easier to discern the years. Also, many, many lists have inconsistent row heights, so I don't think it's that big of a deal, and as you said, I just did change this, and now that I see it I agree it looks better to me this way. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice article, all criteria fulfilled. -RunningOnBrains 06:21, 16 May 2008 (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/Green_Bay_Packers_Hall_of_Fame&oldid=1195175605"