Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of UAAP Final Four results

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Matthewedwards 00:41, 25 January 2009 [1].

List of UAAP Final Four results[edit]

I believe this is ready for FL - don't let the article history fool you, it has been sitting at UAAP Final Four until I decided to bring it into its own article since the parent article is getting long already. I hope the quirkiness of the playoff format is understood well. –Howard the Duck 09:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that we do not start lists as "This is a list of..." Dabomb87 (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - lacking prose

  • This is a list of the University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) men's basketball Final Four results. - FL's are discouraged to begin with "This is a list of ____"
  • The list includes UAAP men's basketball games played under the Final Four format since the 1994 season, a year after the format was instituted. - This not "the" In addition, move it towards the end of the prose.
  • The results include one-game playoffs where teams tied after the elimination round for a Final Four berth played an extra game to determine which team clinches the higher seed in the playoffs. - This is a run-on/fragment, and needs revision. In addition, it needs to be moved later into the article.
    • I've joined with the first paragraph since in effect there are 5, not 4 teams in the postseason. –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the UAAP is not a home-and-away league, the position of season host rotates among member universities, and the host pays for the arena rental and other facilities. - link to "home-and-away league" or an explanation to what it means? In addition, source for this statement?
    • Done, see above. Most Filipino leagues do not employ the home-and-away system. In quick inspection of the references they tell you that the games are not played in the home arenas of the teams but in a neutral venue; even all teams play in Ateneo's home gym so it is not really exclusively theirs.–Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The league uses a modified Shaughnessy playoff system: the top four teams enter the playoffs, while the he top two seeds are given the "twice-to-beat" advantage, that is, in order for them to be eliminated in the semifinals, they have to be beaten twice by the #3 and #4 seed, with them needing to win only once in order to advance. - another fragment/run-on, needs revision.
    • I've split them into multiple shorter sentences. The reason I placed them in a long sentence is that the thought/process of the tournament should be explained in one sentence, but it got too long. I could say "it is a de facto best-of-three series, with the higher seed having an automatic 1-0 lead" but I thought it was too jargon-y, with the concept of the "best-of-x" series not readily used in tournaments outside North America. –Howard the Duck 05:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of WP:JARGON, and some of the statements a reader that is unfamiliar with, like "the sweep" "UST"
    • Sweep is linked. I'll be de-jargonizing the acronyms. –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For some reason, there is satisfactorily way of flagging the reader right away on what definition of "sweep" should be read on the Sweep#sports article. However, the meaning has been explained even before it is linked so I don't think it should be that big of a problem. –Howard the Duck 05:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting 2001, each game was played with four 10 minute quarters and a 24 second shot clock. Games before 2001 were played with two 20 minute halves and a 30 second shot clock. - add in before "2001"
  • The notes (1-3) need verification by sources
    • Huh? This is a newspaper. This is a reliable source. –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • He meant the notes right under the table, not the references.—Chris! ct 19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah. That's what I meant.--Truco 22:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't nest a referenced footnote within a explanatory note -- the 2005 and 2007 notes are explained in the lead, however. The 2001 is pretty easy to find references since FIBA changed the rules from 2 halves to 4 quarters in 2000. –Howard the Duck 01:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference section needs to be in a {{reflist}} format, not a format.
  • The table may also need a key for better understanding of the content.
    • What key? The acronyms? –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a legend about the shortened names, and the meaning of "(OT)" and the strikethroughs. –Howard the Duck 06:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly recommend seeking a copy-edit, because the prose is lacking and fails FL Cr 1 and 2--Truco 03:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • The University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) men's basketball Final Four is the postseason of the men's tournament of the UAAP Basketball Championship. - the bold is not the title of the list, so it shouldn't be linked. It can, however, be wikilinked. Its not mandatory to bold the title, per WP:LEAD.
  • Other divisions of UAAP basketball, the women's and juniors', also have their own versions of the Final Four. - if you take the above suggestion, linking Final Four in this sentence will be unnecessary.
  • Other venues were the Cuneta Astrodome in Pasay, Blue Eagle Gym in Quezon City, Ninoy Aquino Stadium in Manila, and the PhilSports Arena in Pasig. - remove the repetitive "the"
  • The third and second paragraph can be made into one
    • Wouldn't that make the paragraph very long? The 4th one is a special provision of the 3rd so it can stand on its own.
  • The advantage for the #1 and #2 seeds is in order for them to be eliminated in the semifinals, they have to be beaten twice by the #4 and #3 seeds respectively. - the comma should be a semi-colon
  • As a result, the "step-ladder" format was used from 1994 to 2007 if a team sweeps the elimination round – the sweeping team advances outright to the best-of-three finals, while the #3 and #4 seeds figure in a playoff to face the #2 seed still possessing the twice-to-beat advantage. - semi colon after 2007
  • In 2005, La Salle had to forfeit all of their won games (elimination round and playoffs) in the 2003 to the 2005 seasons when two of their players were found to have falsified papers in order to enroll at the school, causing them to be ineligible. - "in the" should be from the 2003 to 2005 seasons... In addition, comma before "when"--Truco 22:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done all except the comma before "when" I don't think it is necessary. Is this an English variation or something? The absence of a comma doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. –Howard the Duck 01:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I misread that sentence, so no need for the comma. However, the citations still should be added to the notes section. In addition, an image should be added in the lead.--Truco 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there a way to flag the reader that the notes had already been explained at the lead? The 2007 is different since Ateneo is mentioned twice in the semifnals since there were three rounds due to the sweep.
        • As for images, choose which is more appropriate: this or this? Or both? –Howard the Duck 09:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent)The second and third paragraphs still need to be merged as one. The second image is better. By flagging, do you mean letting them know that the ref is already cited above, well not really, it will just be best to verify it again in the notes with the reference. --Truco 22:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the nth time, there is no satisfactorily way of nesting a footnote inside a another footnote. Unless someone shows me how to do this, this can't be done. Maybe another footnoting mechanism? –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down sir. I don't think you are understand what I mean here, I mean add a source to the notes in the notes section, as seen here.--Truco 15:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into how you did the references w/in a note. Other wise, I'd just bring the the 2005 paragraph at the bottom of the notes section. –Howard the Duck 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way this footnoting procedure be done on multiple occasions? I was going to apply it but I realized it should be repeated everytime La Salle's wins were overturned. –Howard the Duck 11:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can read {{note}} and {{ref}} on how to do that, there are also other templates that do that, which you can find in the links I gave you.--TRUCO 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? This is getting stupid. A reader can still verify the facts stated in the footnotes by reading the rest of the article. Invoking WP:VERIFY assumes the reader is awfully moronic. If this fails solely because of this, this process is nuts. –Howard the Duck 06:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee man, don't start a riot. You have done it correctly by sourcing the note.--TRUCO 15:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "in order to" (multiple occurences)
  • "The league uses a modified Shaughnessy playoff system: the top four teams enter the playoffs, while the top two seeds are given the "twice-to-beat" advantage. The advantage for the #1 and #2 seeds is in order for them to be eliminated in the semifinals; they have to be beaten twice by the #4 and #3 seeds respectively. Meanwhile, they need to win only once in order to advance."-->The league uses a modified Shaughnessy playoff system: the top four teams enter the playoffs, and the top two seeds are given the "twice-to-beat" advantage. The advantage for the #1 and #2 seeds is that for them to be eliminated in the semifinals, they have to be beaten twice by the #4 and #3 seeds respectively; however, they need to win only once in order to advance.
    I split this into shorter sentences as said by Truco said above, Now, you're telling me to merge them. Which is which? –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked the sentence, but it is fine as is. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In its institution in 1993;" What does this mean? Do you mean "Since its institution..."? The semicolon should be a comma.
  • "while the #3 and #4 seeds figure in a playoff" Unclear, what does "figure in" mean?
  • Play another game. "Play in a playoff" sounds silly. I could have some more suggestions. Face off? –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2005, La Salle had to forfeit all of their won games"-->In 2005, La Salle had to forfeit all of their wins...
  • I dunno about this, even if they lost the game, if their games were forfeited, the scores will be turned into 20-0 whether they were won or lost. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then, would it not be "In 2005, La Salle had to forfeit all of their games..."? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you forfeit a basketball game, the "final score" would be 20-0 (in soccer it's 3-0). The results prior to forfeiture are given to show what were the final score prior to the forfeiture, –Howard the Duck 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I understand that. But what does "won games" signify then? I follow basketball, but there must be something else that I missed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That means games that are won are reversed; games that are lost can't be reversed since they are counted already. In essense all games that a team participated was forfeited, but the act only takes place on won games. –Howard the Duck 11:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This led to the league suspending all of La Salle's varsity teams and awarding Far Eastern University (FEU), their finals opponent, the 2004 trophy."-->This led to the league's suspension of La Salle's varsity teams; Far Eastern University (FEU), their finals opponent, was awarded the 2004 trophy
  • See the splitting of run-on sentences comment above. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say to make it into two sentences. My suggestion is just to improve the flow. Also, the noun + -ing sentence construction ("league suspending") is awkward. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a better idea to split this into 2. –Howard the Duck 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to "league suspending" to "suspension" as only the league can suspend teams. –Howard the Duck 11:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one-game playoffs where"-->one-game playoffs in which.
  • Like is this even necessary? I don't see this in Aston Villa F.C. seasons, for example. A reader can hover his mouse pointer to the linked year. This assumes the reader is very stupid; it's like he hasn't seen a similar Wikipedia list. I'll still have to be convinced on this part, although I don't like this article to be hostaged by this single "comment." –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Aston Villa article was promoted almost a year and a half ago, standards have risen a lot since then. There has been consensus that piped year links are sometimes misleading because they look like they lead to irrelevant year links rather than highly germane season links. If you don't want to add the note, change the header from "Year" to "Season". Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • What makes http://www.ubelt.com/index.aspx a reliable source?
    Currently, this the only website in the internet that has UAAP results from 1988 to 2008. The UAAP once had an official website but it only listed games since 2002, and closed down several years ago after allegations it was plagiarizing content, from guess what, UBelt.
    Trusting you on this one. I will leave this source unstruck for other reviewers to evaluate. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can cross-reference them with the Philippine Daily Inquirer references provided and they are correct. Only the 56-all game was in doubt.
    As I said, I am trusting you. I will not let this stop me from supporting when the other issues are resolved, this is just so that other reviewers can weigh in also. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If its anything UBelt is like basketball-reference.com. –Howard the Duck 01:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise http://thelasalliansports.blogspot.com/2008/11/victory-march.html, a blog post?
  • If you'd notice, the UBelt reference for that game lists the result as 56-56. I've searched far and wide to find out the final score of the game, and I stumbled on that blog. I'll trust it since the game was participated by La Salle, hence their score must be correct. It must had been published in The LaSallian but I'm not sure. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, how do we know that the person/site that posted the material was accurate in their posting? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you;d notice, the results of the games on that blog and UBelt are the same, except of course for the 56-all game. –Howard the Duck 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Web titles should not be in all caps.
"That's how they appear in the titles; I'd just change them to sentence caps. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publications should be in italics. This can be accomplished by putting the publication's name in the work= parameter, and the company that owns the publication in the publisher parameter. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just ditch the "work" parameter and change it with "publication". It'll be redundant to see two similar items in the references. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (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/List_of_UAAP_Final_Four_results&oldid=1143881342"