Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Cincinnati Bengals head coaches/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates | List of Cincinnati Bengals head coaches
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 not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [1].

List of Cincinnati Bengals head coaches

edit

Self-nomination A little short, but seems to meet all criteria (except the images one). « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • Comment Is it possible to expand the lead with at least some history of the team itself? An image would be great, but I know they are often hard to come by. I made some small tweaks to the lead, but it could still use some copyediting. Also, those redlinks in the chart are unsightly. Maybe throw together some stubs? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments Starting to look better.
  • I'd like to see a more interesting lead sentence. It's currently redundant to the title of the article.
  • The Cincinnati Bengals are a professional American football team based in Cincinnati, Ohio.[1] They are currently members of the North Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL). could probably be combined into one sentence.
  • Their first season, 1968, was as an American Football League franchise, but they joined the NFL as part of the 1970 AFL-NFL Merger, which had actually been agreed to in 1966. too many commas, and the POVish word "actually" needs to be removed.
  • Brown, the first coach of the Bengals, coached the team the longest, from 1968 to 1975. could be worded better.
  • Might want to rename the references section to "Notes" or "Notes and references".
  • That's it from me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mostly per GreenJoe. This list is short enough to be merged into the main article. Just put this table in this section and the main article is going to improve even more. These type of lists are useful when the table is too big to stay in the main article, but I just don't see this table being too big.--Crzycheetah 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FLC is an attempt to reach a consensus as to whether an article meets WP:WIAFL, not whether an article should exist or not. I feel that we should look at the article itself here, and if you believe it shouldn't exist, AfD would be the more appropriate place. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The length of an article does not affect whether an article should be considered our best work. After all, it's not our fault the Bengals didn't have more coaches. :-) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I reviewed the Bengals' main page and saw this table there, I wouldn't say that "hey, this article sucks because they do not have enough coaches...booo." This list is nicely done, so it can stay. On the other hand, featuring and considering this list as an example of our best work is premature.--Crzycheetah 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But still, if that's all the information that exists, and that's as wide as the scope is, how can the list be expanded to become an example of our best work? The only way to do that would be to created a bunch of hoaxes and OR. Also, since the article does list all the coaches, it is completely comprehensive, and thus deserves the honor or FL as much as any other. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite a lack of references, I do, as it includes all information there is to include. Of course that article could be improved; a better lead, etc, but that's besides the point. Also, I think it would be better to move this discussion to the talk page, as it is becoming quite long. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←)I just don't see this list becoming featured anytime soon. In the meantime, I'd suggest you to go through the following examples: 1, 2, and 3.--Crzycheetah 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those FLCs amaze me. The FLC criteria says nowhere that an article has to be of a certain size to become featured. FLC, as I said before, is a discussion which detemines whether an article meets those given criterion, and so, while it may be short, I don't see any reason for an opposed based on length. However, that is just my opinion. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Julian. Why wait until the list gets longer? It meets the FL criteria now, and we can expect that it will meet the FL criteria in the future. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that, as I said above, this list does not meet the FL criteria now.--Crzycheetah 02:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I respectfully disagree with that point. Why should length be factored in determining whether this article exemplifies our very best work. As long it is comprehensive, length shouldn't matter. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the grounds already covered above by Crzycheetah. I had exactly the same discussion on another FLC in December over what I thought to be a too-short list (though this list is even shorter!). Anywho, the argument was huge but basically my objection was that the list cannot do what an FL aims to do - exemplify Wikipedia's very best work - simply because IMO a list so short cannot be called one of Wikipedia's best. Yes, the list does meet the FL criteria, but it is not implied that being a piece of "Wikipedia's very best work" is limited to fulfillment of those criteria. —97198 talk 06:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I've been concerned with the size issues of these head coaches lists. The fact is it isn't Wikipedia's fault if the teams haven't gone through a bunch of coaches. As long as it's well written, can be verified, blah blah, I don't think that shortness is enough to disqualify it. That said, this is the shortest one I've seen so far. And no, the team's main article wouldn't suffer by including this information there. I keep swaying from supporting to opposing. I dunno... <shrugs>
  • In the meantime, use mdashes not ndashes for "empty" cells

And that's all I have. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Gonzo fan2007
    • First off, I am not going to address the size issue, as others have already stated my opinion, nor will I support or oppose based on size alone.
    • This list, no matter what, will not be featured with Image:New Cincinnati Bengals Logo.png in it. That is a copyrighted, fair-use logo that first off does not have a fair-use rationale written for use in this article, and secondly, no matter how good of a rationale is written, that logo should not be in this article. Remove it.
    • Let's just get rid of the colors, they really don't do much for the article, and actually make it harder for color-blind people to read the table.
    • Right now, there are no references. There needs to be a reference section, and a footnotes section. There should be no references in the footnotes section and no footnotes in the reference section. These should be split up. This requires the use of {{ref label}} and {{note label}}.
    • You only have two references. Even for a list like this, you need to have a few more so that we can verify its content.
    • The coach of the year awards need direct references.
    • "The Bengals are a professional American football team based in Cincinnati, Ohio.[1] and are currently members of the North Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL)." either there is a misplaced period after Ohio, or the second sentence starts out with "and" either way, these sentences need to be fixed.
    • "Brown and Gregg are also the only two coaches in the Bengals to with the UPI coach of the year." Needs an in-line citation.
    • "Gregg is the best coach statistically, with a winning percentage of 0.561." Needs an in-line citation.
    • "Dick LeBeau, who coach coached the Bengals from 2000 to 2002 is statistically the poorest coach with a winning percentage of 0.261." Needs an in-line citation.
    • "Hall of Fame coaches Brown and Gregg..." no need to repeat "Hall of Fame."
    • The whole last paragraph is unsourced and full of stubby, random sentences.
    • The lead is too short, to uninformative, is full of stubby, random sentences that purely state facts, and that have little to no transitions between the sentences.
    • This list is uncategorized!!!!
  • You know what, going into this review, I figured that it was a good list that just had issues with size. After reviewing the list I find it atrocious that some editors have supported this list for featured status. I strongly oppose this list and encourage the editors who are debating the size issue to maybe focus on actually getting the list up to a status that meets the criteria before debating whether the list is big enough. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Extra line before "Coaches" section.
  • No free image of any of the coaches?

Gary King (talk) 04:11, 8 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_Cincinnati_Bengals_head_coaches/archive1&oldid=1126717932"