Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oakland Raiders/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
I have made a large number of improvements to this article, and feel it is at least on the same level as 2 other FAs for the NFL (Chicago Bears and New England Patriots). I feel there is comprehensive coverage of the team, including off-the-field topics. I regret that I wasn't able to find some free-use pics, but if enough of you think some fair-use ones would be OK then I'm cool with that. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good. Just a few minor things that need doing and I'm sure this will pass.
- Legal battles and Rivals sections look like triva sections in disguise.
- Logos shouldn't be in a gallery
- Remove notable fan from Raider Nation section. Could also be exspanded a bit, just add some more from the Raider Nation article.
- The Autumn Wind should be in a Sound sample box
- Remove Recent first-round draft picks
- Maybe too many sections
- Could do with some images to, for want of a better word, air it out. The Early years and Move to Los Angeles setion look a bit overwellming to read.
- Could maybe remove the Head Coaches list since they are linked at the bottem. At the very least remove the exact date they joined and left the team.
- Not sure if Bay Area Sports Hall of Fame is really notable enough.
Buc 09:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responses
- I can see that some may view the Rivals section as trivia for too fan-ish, but I would argue that the Legal Battles section is valid. The Raiders (and in particular Al Davis) are well-known for being involved in some very public legal disputes with the league.
- I agree. Keep the info just re-word so it's a free flowing setion rarther than a list.
- OK, I attempted to do this, let me know how it looks now. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Keep the info just re-word so it's a free flowing setion rarther than a list.
- Any particular reason you think the list of notable fans should go? As for expanding that section, I can do that.
- Too trivial
- If I don't use a gallery for the logos, there is not really a way to make them fit in that section. So my question to others is - would it just be better to include one of the two old logos in that section and get rid of the other two?
- It's just a basic rule. You can't link to galleries is articles. Also you don't really need the current logo since it's in the lead infobox.
- Fair enough. I removed the gallery and just left the original logo in that section. Better? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just a basic rule. You can't link to galleries is articles. Also you don't really need the current logo since it's in the lead infobox.
- I'm not sure what you mean by a sound sample box. Can you provide an example?
- I removed the list of recent first-round picks and placed a link in See also.
- As for too many sections - do you have suggestions on sections to remove or merge?
- I would be happy to add some images, but they would have to be Fair Use. If the feeling here is that it would be good to do, I will do so.
- The head coaches list provides information not found in the Navbox, just as in the Bears article. As for the dates, that seems like perfectly encyclopedic information to me.
- dates are too trivial. Buc 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about the Bay Area Sports Hall of Fame section, and have removed it.
Thanks for the feedback, let me know if you have more! --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A very reluctant support but only because I'm a Broncos fan... but there are some spelling errors and the transition between Gruden being the Raider coach and tampa coach in the intro has to be cleaned up... if you weren't familiar with the situation you'd think there was a mistake.Balloonman 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I ran the article through AWB (which includes a spellchecker) and nothing was flagged - can you point out a specific misspelling? Also, I tried to clarify the Gruden/Callahan bit in the lead section. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without rereading the whole article no, but there were two words that were missing a space between them... up near the top somewhere... (EG rather than having John Smith it was "JohnSmith.")Balloonman 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I scanned through and didn't find it. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without rereading the whole article no, but there were two words that were missing a space between them... up near the top somewhere... (EG rather than having John Smith it was "JohnSmith.")Balloonman 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I ran the article through AWB (which includes a spellchecker) and nothing was flagged - can you point out a specific misspelling? Also, I tried to clarify the Gruden/Callahan bit in the lead section. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.