Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pittsburgh Steelers head coaches/archive1

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 not promoted 23:18, 14 May 2008.

List of Pittsburgh Steelers head coaches[edit]

Nominated because I feel that it meets the FL criteria. Statements made in the intro paragraphs, which are unsourced (ie. highest win percentage), can be confirmed by looking at the list itself. I will gladly make any improvments needed. Blackngold29 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007
  • Comments from Gonzo fan2007
    • Avoid links in the emboldened lead sentence per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
    • "There have been 16 head coaches of the Pittsburgh Steelers, including coaches for the Pittsburgh Pirates (1933–1939) and the Pittsburgh Steelers (1940–1942) and (1945–present) in the National Football League (NFL)." There have been 16 coaches for the Steelers, including coaches of the Pirates? This sentence is a poor read and a poor intro. Consider a major rewrite.
    • "This list only includes the coach hired by the Steelers for the 1943 Philadelphia-Pittsburgh Steagles and the 1944 Chicago-Pittsburgh Card-Pitts." Wait what? This list includes more than one coach, so this doesn't make sense at all. Please expand and explain.
    • "The longest coaching term any coach spent with the Steelers was Chuck Noll's 23 seasons, he also won the most Super Bowls of any coach, with four." This is a run-on sentence, needs to be rewritten.
    • "...including the three Steelers coaches who have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame." Could you maybe name those 3 instead of just stating that. This also needs a direct in-line reference. (Here's a good one [1])
    • The whole lead is a very tough read, including lots of choppy, short sentences, some of which don't make sense, it really needs a rewrite.
    • What does the em-dash signify in the # column?
    • Maybe noting that the Steelers only had two coaches from 1969-2006 would be nice, as it is pretty interesting fact. (I'm also sure you could find an article on this, especially with Cowher recently retiring).
    • You have 1933, 1939, 1940, 1942, and 1945, 1947, 1972 not linked, 1933 linked to the article on the year 1933, and 2005 linked to the Steelers 2005 season page. It should be consistent. I would recommend linking 1933 to 1933 in sports, and consider linking the other years to the Steelers seasons pages (if they exist).
    • One reference? This list isn't verifiable, especially if you are not going to in-line cite and have a general reference for the whole list. You need more references, and you also probably should have in-line citations for the lead. We shouldn;t have to go searching through the source(s) to find where something is.
    • {{Talkheader}} Should be removed from the talk page per the guidelines of use which say that it should only be used for very active discussion pages.
    • All of the awards appear to not be sourced at all. They should have direct references.
  • So for now I'm going to have to oppose. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to questions by Gonzo fan2007:

  • Bolded intro and "this list includes": I based off List of Washington Redskins head coaches, a featured list.
  • The Steelers were founded as the Pirates, it specifically states that in the intro. I only meant that I was including the coaches of the Pirates because they are the same team (just a different name).
    • I understand all this, I am giving you what many people will think when they read this. The problem is that you mention the Pirates name before you explain that they used to be the Pirates. Saying "There have been 16 head coaches of the Pittsburgh Steelers, including those from when the organization was known as the Pittsburgh Pirates (1933–1939)." This or something like it makes more sense to me. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1943-44: I meant that the Steelers combined with those teams for those years; the Steelers provided one coach, the other teams the other head coach, but I only included the one provided by the Steelers; it is explained in the footnote.
    • You either need to explain that in the lead or link to the footnote at the end of the sentence, as I honestly didnt notice that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The em dash is used when the same person was hired for a second or third term, the numbers represent indidividuals hired. (The same thing was doen here)
  • I'll work on the rest. Blackngold29 04:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

  • OK, got ya. I'm gonna start working on another draft in my sandbox. Is there a way to put this process on hold (like with the GA nomination)? This is my first list, I'll let you know when I'm done. Blackngold29 13:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Blackngold29

Question: Why do the cross and * need to be there? Don't the colors show the same info already? Should the colors be eliminated? It just seems repetitive to have both. Blackngold29 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COLORS#Using Colors in Articles. How would a color blind person be able to tell the difference (for example) Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fair. But isn't it repetive to have both? Should the colors be eliminated? Also, shouldn't other FL such as: List of Green Bay Packers head coaches be changed also? Thanks. Blackngold29 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's a must. Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the Packers one :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than the Packers' list that needs fixed, but this isn't the place to discuss those. I guess leaving the colors makes it easier to see, but the other marks should also remain per the WP:COLOR. Thanks. Blackngold29 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "...Pittsburgh Pirates, in 1933..." no need for the comma in my opinion.
  • "city's heritage" - can you expand this just a little for those of us unaware of Pittsburgh's heritage?
  • "Joe Bach served two separate terms as head coach; and Walt Kiesling served three separate terms. " - not overwhelmed by "served x separate terms" twice in quick succession and not sure of the use of the semi-colon here.
  • "...due to the amount of players who fought in World War II,..." - due to the number of players fighting in World War II?
  • "...the Steelers combined their teams..." how many teams did the Steelers have?
  • "...Steelers' coach Walt Kiesling shared coaching duties with Greasy Neale and Phil Handler,..." needs citation.
  • "Struggling for much of their early years, their first winning season..." New paragraph so you need to reassert who you mean when you say "their". Plus, isn't the franchise singular?
  • To non NFLers, it's unclear what a "winning season" is.
  • "Twelve of the 16 head coaches spent their entire professional coaching careers with the franchise. Including..." - no need for the new sentence here.
  • "one of only four men to coach the same team for 23 years" exactly 23 years? Or over 23 years?
  • "Chuck Noll became one of only four men to coach the same team for 23 years, when he retired in 1991" - surely he didn't become that "when he retired"?
  • Expand NFL before using it as an abbreviation.
  • Link the appropriate Super Bowl for 2005.
  • External Links section should be External links per WP:HEAD.
  • Regular Season in the table should just be Regular season.

That's all I have, so mild oppose right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rambling Man:

  • Did I miss anything? The only think I didn't change was the "winning season"; I understand where you're coming from, but it is used in reference to all sports, and I can't think of a better way to word it, Any thoughts? Thanks! Blackngold29 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree - for example, I would never use that phrase in football (soccer) - my team won 18 and lost 13 this season, but it's never going to be called a "winning season". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant "first season with a winning record." Either way, I changed it to "first season with more wins than losses" is that OK? Blackngold29 16:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Green tickYAlso, avoid that hideous "scrolling reference" box. Just {{reflist}} maybe piped with 2 will be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 6 May 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_Pittsburgh_Steelers_head_coaches/archive1&oldid=1126719968"