The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:57, 8 December 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list as a follow-up to my nomination of List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks. I believe that the list meets all of the criteria for a featured list as the general structure has been copied from List of Kansas City Chiefs head coaches (another featured list). The only major difference is that I have removed the colour from the table as I believe that it presents accessibility issues and does not add anything more to the table than the symbols that are already next to each name. As I am not particularly well-versed in matters of American football, I would appreciate any comments that anyone may have about the facts in the "History" section. – Pee Jay 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Normally I don't offer an oppose right off the bat unless I see a huge amount of mistakes to be fixed. In this case, however, it's two main things:
Awaiting input from other reviewers. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose – Hate to pile on here, but the other reviewers have it exactly right. For a list of less than 10 items to have a chance at gaining an exception to the unspoken limit (which has been around for a long time; I'm surprised you haven't seen a similar case before), it needs to be a unique case. A simple coaches list isn't unique, especially not when it has the same format as similar, longer lists. Why don't you try making a Notes column in the table and including facts about the coaches in it (think a more extensive Achievements column); for example, you could say how many times a coach reached the NFL playoffs and his best playoff finish. That might give the list some added value, in a similar fashion to the no-hitters list KV5 linked above, which has an example of a Notes column. Not sure that would do it, but the list might at least have a better shot than it doesn now. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Note to reviewers Please elaborate as to how the article fails an FL criterion (I believe 3b is the one everyone is concerned about). Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:57, 8 December 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list as a follow-up to my nomination of List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks. I believe that the list meets all of the criteria for a featured list as the general structure has been copied from List of Kansas City Chiefs head coaches (another featured list). The only major difference is that I have removed the colour from the table as I believe that it presents accessibility issues and does not add anything more to the table than the symbols that are already next to each name. As I am not particularly well-versed in matters of American football, I would appreciate any comments that anyone may have about the facts in the "History" section. – Pee Jay 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Normally I don't offer an oppose right off the bat unless I see a huge amount of mistakes to be fixed. In this case, however, it's two main things:
Awaiting input from other reviewers. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose – Hate to pile on here, but the other reviewers have it exactly right. For a list of less than 10 items to have a chance at gaining an exception to the unspoken limit (which has been around for a long time; I'm surprised you haven't seen a similar case before), it needs to be a unique case. A simple coaches list isn't unique, especially not when it has the same format as similar, longer lists. Why don't you try making a Notes column in the table and including facts about the coaches in it (think a more extensive Achievements column); for example, you could say how many times a coach reached the NFL playoffs and his best playoff finish. That might give the list some added value, in a similar fashion to the no-hitters list KV5 linked above, which has an example of a Notes column. Not sure that would do it, but the list might at least have a better shot than it doesn now. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Note to reviewers Please elaborate as to how the article fails an FL criterion (I believe 3b is the one everyone is concerned about). Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply