Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/East Carolina Pirates football seasons

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 23:35, 4 March 2008.

---

East Carolina Pirates football seasons

I believe this list is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. It is the first list that covers this much information. I believe it also complys with WP:MOS and has a photo. PGPirate 01:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Support as nom. PGPirate 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This list compares well with the list of Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons that has already reached featured status. I'd strongly suggest inserting in-line citations in your lede paragraphs (I personally think they should have been used with the Iowa list as well), but other than that, I really like the color coding and the streamlined nature of the list. Excellent work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note This user was asked to support this nom. [1] -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed I was. I wouldn't have given it if I didn't think it was deserved, however. The article is pretty much the same as the Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons article, and if that article can make it, there's no reason that this one can't as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Your vote should be discounted. Blatantly asking people to support a nom is a huge no no in my books because what's the point of the process if you can just get project members to support it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I believe my actions in improving the article speak for themselves. Regardless of what was asked for, I followed correct procedure in examining the article, making suggested changes, and giving support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Use en-dash to separate scores, game records, years etc.
  • "comprised of"? - Came from Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons
    • Doesn't necessarily make it right! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "football program" - I don't understand this. - Would football team work? Came from Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons
    • Sure does. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Year ranges - don't put spaces between the year and the en-dash.
  • "bowl games" - not clear to a non-expert reader. Perhaps a wikilink?
  • "The first three seasons of existence " of existence is redundant.he w
  • "he was here" - write from third person - so "there".
  • Second paragraph of lead reads really choppy, a lot of short sentences.
  • There are a number of claims in the lead that need to be referenced, e.g. "He never coached another conference championship team again.", "The administration decided to join the Southern Conference in 1965. ", "Coach Emory lead the Pirate football team to the first AP Poll top 25 year end ranking." etc.
  • Table isn't rendering properly for me (IE7 Windows XP), unless the big L-shaped blank area at the top is intentional? If so, what does it mean? - Note 3 and 4 tells why the L-shaped blank is there.
    • Gotcha. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "00" in total? Why not just 0?
  • References/Notes could be combined into a References with a Specific and General subsection. - Like that? Again, it came from Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons.
    • I've adjusted it accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• At the moment, the lead needs some considerable work in my opinion so I have to oppose right now, I don't think it represents Wikipedia's best work right now. But it's not insurmountable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So now just the lead to work on, the citations to add against the claims in the lead and one more thing, why is the heading in the table "Conference(s)" when the Pirates only ever appeared in a single conference per season? I could guess... it was on the Iowa Hawkeyes article?! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Take a look at it now. I copyedited for grammar and flow, except for the first paragraph—I'm not really sure how an intro to a list article should read. The rest reads a lot better now, I think, but there may be some remaining Wikipedia style problems. If there are, let me know and I'll fix them. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Further comments
  • "team's to the present."..?
  • "Football was called off for the 1942–1945 seasons due to World War II.[6] After the two year hiatus, " - that reads like three seasons, four years (as in the table as well)....And consider merging the very short first sentence with the second. - Sorry, I can't add:)
  • "only time in school history the team won two conference championships in a row. " - citation needed.
• A lot better - try to get down to four paragraphs in the lead maximum, but otherwise, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay. I've got all those fixes except for the citation. I'll leave that to PGPirate when he wakes up and sees this. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, JKBrooks85

• Support - a lot better than when I found it. Good work to both JKBrooks and PGPirate... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• User:B's list:
  • The coloring is confusing. I don't think you need a separate color for NSC championship vs SC championship since each row tells what conference they were in. (In other words, pick one color for a conference championship.)
  • Also, for the last two seasons where it says they finished 2nd in CUSA, is that second overall or second in the division? I'm assuming that CUSA does the same thing the ACC does where there are only divisional standings now and there are no conference standings any more. So the table should indicate in some fashion that these are divisional standings, not conference standings. Suggestion: change the conference label to "CUSA Eastern" (or whatever the name of the division is) - that way it is obvious what you are talking about. - B and I are trying to come to a consensus to this question. PGPirate 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC) - came to consensus/understanding - PGPirate 00:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed My last thought is that there is a little inconsistency with how "things that don't exist" are indicated. Ties were done away with in the 1990s and so that entire area is empty (no cell borders). The coaches' poll didn't exist before 1950 and so that entire area is empty (no cell borders). But then, during WWII when ECU didn't play football, that area has cell borders. It's at least worth considering making it rowspan=4 colspan=7 and having a message ECU did not play football due to WWII or something. That way, it's more consistent with other things that didn't exist.
  • Regarding this sentence - "In 1965, the school's administration decided to join the Southern Conference", is this the best way to phrase it? Did they walk in to conference headquarters one day and say, "we're joining"? Were they invited and they accepted the invitation? Did the administration (as opposed to the athletics department) make the decision? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it sounds like this sentence is embellishing on history when the only thing we know from the sources given is that the school joined the conference.

Agreed, rewrote sentence, and found cite. PGPirate 01:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• --B (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Everything looks fine. --B (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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