Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2006 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings/archive1
This article is a continuation (and an improvement) on the 2005 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings article which is also a Featured List. This article shows the dynamics in ratings throughout a the 2006 college football season. It has been checked for accuracy; it is informative and well sourced.↔NMajdan•talk 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - great list. Solid criteria. Complete, accurate, and well-sourced. Note: I have made small contributions to the lead and some wikilinking. Johntex\talk 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Overall this is an excellent list, and somewhat an improvement over the previous. I can recommend some fixes:
- The first sentence doesn't really explain the article's subject, instead it should be: 2006 NCAA Division I-BS (Bowl Subdivision) football rankings is...
All sentences which begin with "that", "this", "it" should be merged with the previous (e.g. and is.., which is..).- I fixed all but one, because I couldn't figure out how to also include it with the previous sentence that also used a that/this/it. --MECU≈talk 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"Sports" doesn't need to be linked.As the 2006 football season progressed, rankings are updated weekly - Grammar.The legend/indicators need to precede the list, preferably on the right of the lead in this case.External links shouldn't appear within the article's context. Instead, move the Michigan blog link to an external links section.Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)- I've made a few formatting changes to the article. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, I have made some of the changes you requested and will make the others as soon as I can, unless somebody beats me to it.↔NMajdan•talk 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment it stretches the page, dunno if that counts but can it be remedied? --Howard the Duck 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is built in; we prefer it that way. Trying to get such a wide table onto a normal screen would make it look much worse, in my opinion. I've seen that table conformed to a 1024x768 monitor (which I use) and it was not pretty. I would be very much against any suggestion to limiting this to screen width.↔NMajdan•talk 18:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was going to say to divide it into monthly sections but you wouldn't see Florida's from #7 to #1 that dramtically. 02:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is built in; we prefer it that way. Trying to get such a wide table onto a normal screen would make it look much worse, in my opinion. I've seen that table conformed to a 1024x768 monitor (which I use) and it was not pretty. I would be very much against any suggestion to limiting this to screen width.↔NMajdan•talk 18:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support - The last 3 weeks of the USA Today poll and the BlogPoll don't have teams' records listed, that needs to be added like all the previous weeks have. VegaDark 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support though I am one of the major contributors to this list, it doesn't seem that I am precluded from supporting since the nomination also counts as a support and that user is also a major contributor. If I am wrong, please forgive me and simply ignore my support and let me know nicely how wrong I am. --MECU≈talk 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)