Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oakland Raiders 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008.

List of Oakland Raiders head coaches
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)


 * 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)

Comments

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

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)
 * Comments from
 * "..., 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.
 * Any sugestions?
 * Suggest WP:LOCE for copyeditors. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tried to fix it.
 * 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)
 * "respectively.[2]"
 * " total of 48 seasons[2] in the AFL and NFL." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't follow, there is no full spot in that quote. Buc (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? "... NFL." Move [2] to after "...NFL." The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Like I said, shows it's Ongoing. Buc (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I don't think NFL head coach lists have a MOS. Not yet anyway. Buc (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, so in the meantime get rid of italics, they add nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More comments from
 * "Games Coached" -> "Games coached".
 * "pro-football-reference.com" or "Pro Football Reference"?
 * Sometimes you appear to use the  field in the cite web template (e.g. for ref [4]) and sometimes the   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)
 * Nothing. No awards is self-explanatory - no number in the # cell etc needs explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to relink Flores - it's not a different section, just a different era. You don't relink Shell.

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

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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.