Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oakland Raiders head coaches

< 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 User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008 [1].

List of Oakland Raiders head coaches edit

Has had a PR and I've got feedback from a few users. Think I've done enough. Buc (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)
{{{2}}}
  • Support Everything looks pretty good to me. Sorry for the late response, I have been on vacation for a while. Good work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "been 15 head" — I suggest removing "15" from the bold.
  • Unlink years, per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
    • What, all of them? Buc (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Raiders have played over 750 games in a total of 48 seasons, in the AFL and NFL." — remove comma
  • "Tom Flores in 1980 and in 1983." → "Tom Flores in 1980 and 1983."
  • "One coach has won the AFL Championship, John Rauch in 1966." → "One coach, John Rauch, won the AFL Championship in 1966."
  • "Three other coaches, Art Shell, Jon Gruden and Bill Callahan," → "Three other coaches have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs: Art Shell, Jon Gruden, and Bill Callahan"
    • Those last two subjections seem a bit inconsistent, one goes "number, name, stat" and the other goes "number, stat, name". Buc (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "..., who had moved to the NFL. They joined the NFL after the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. They moved to Los Angeles in 1982, and returned to Oakland in 1995..." - reads clunkily and could do with a brief copyedit to improve flow.
  • Move ref [2] to the after the full stop at the end of the sentence as recommended by WP:CITE.
    • It is
      • No it isn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "respectively.[2]"
          • " total of 48 seasons[2] in the AFL and NFL." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't follow, there is no full spot in that quote. Buc (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Are you kidding me? "... NFL." Move [2] to after "...NFL." The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Um no I'm not? Not quite sure what you mean but I think I've fixed it now. Buc (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "Loses" be "Losses"?
  • Colour choice for "whole career" is virtually impossible for me to see on my laptop. Why not choose something like pastel pink?
    • What's the code for that?
  • As footnotes on the whole appear to be sentence fragments then they don't take full stops.
    • If you say so.
  • Any reason why present is in italics other than personal preference?
    • Shows it's Ongoing. Buc (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand what present means, but why is it necessary to put it in italics? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like I said, shows it's Ongoing. Buc (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What property of italic text indicates "ongoing"? Does the MOS back this up? Get rid of the italics. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think NFL head coach lists have a MOS. Not yet anyway. Buc (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough to start with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Ok I think that's everything. Buc (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "Games Coached" -> "Games coached".
  • "pro-football-reference.com" or "Pro Football Reference"?
  • Sometimes you appear to use the work field in the {{cite web}} template (e.g. for ref [4]) and sometimes the publisher field (e.g. ref [5]). In each case though, you appear to be linking a website - so use one or the other but not both for the same thing.
  • Does footnote [a] have a reference?
  • Don't have blank cells - either put a footnote/ref in, or add an en-dash and put something suitable in the key explaining it.
    • What should I put in the "Awards" cells? Buc (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing. No awards is self-explanatory - no number in the # cell etc needs explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to relink Flores - it's not a different section, just a different era. You don't relink Shell.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've done everything. Buc (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Matthew
  • The footnotes are sentences so should end in periods.
  • Footnote C: "Shell two spells as the team's head coach" missing a "spent" perhaps? And "two spells" isn't good either. The whole sentence needs changing
    • What wrong with it? Buc (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps "terms"?
  • One more thing: Note B doesn't need to be there for his 2006 tenure as it doesn't apply, though as B and C relate to the same guy, you could merge them. I'd also move the note links a, b and c to the reference column. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait...why would we want to move the footnotes to the "references" section? The footnotes themselves actually have references, so we would have footnotes inside a references section where the footnotes themselves have references that are in the same section. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Matthew is suggesting you physically move the placement of the footnote from where they are to the references column in the table, not move them into the references section at the foot of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'd say that Shell's second appearance in the list should be numbered 15, and Kiffin 16. Technically, he is the 9th and fifteenth coach. Where's the reference for his second appearance?
    • This contradics what I've been told before. Buc (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh. Still needs referencing though Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • BTW, who told you this? Could you bring it up with the relevent Wikiproject? I'll concede to whatever they say. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • TRM "Art Shell should have two rows, splitting his tenure accordingly. Just don't increment the # on the second spell." Buc (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Hickoksports.com reliable?
    • http://www.hickoksports.com/bibliog.shtml
      • Hmm.. It's borderline for me. It looks like a one-man show. How do we know he copied the information from the books correctly? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's wrong with a one man show? Show me something that suggests he didn't copied the information from the books correctly? Buc (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nothing's wrong with a one-man show, as long as he is an expert in the field. I could sit in my bedroom and put a website together full of facts copied from books, but what's to make it reliable (WP:SPS)? We can't verify that he copied the information correctly or incorrectly. But if the books he used were the reference source, rather than his site, it'd be less of a problem to check verifiability. If I wanted to check what he's said is right, I'd have to buy every single book he used to find out which claim is from where. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • some more stuff. Buc (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either "Pro Football Reference" or "pro-football-reference.com" in the publisher of references, not both. What makes it a reliable source? http://www.pro-football-reference.com/about/ doesn't inspire much confidence. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's good. Many other NFL articles use it. It's the main sources of info for any NFL (well that and here). Buc (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Besides working out if it's an RS, you should use the same name for the publisher as both I and Matthew have pointed out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This has been through the wringer enough, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - one more thing - if you could make the GC, W, L, T, W–L% etc cols the same width it would make the table much more pleasing on the eye. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if it's a good idea -- W–L% is naturally longer because it has extra characters. There'd just be extra white space in the other columns. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:22, 26 June 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/List_of_Oakland_Raiders_head_coaches&oldid=1126719824"