Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New England Patriots seasons/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 promoted by Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [1].

List of New England Patriots seasons[edit]

List of New England Patriots seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Courcelles 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a project that was a little different last week, and I decided to take a look at WP:FFL to see if I could do anything about a list listed there. Well, this is the result, originally a 2007 promotion and 2009 demotion due largely to referencing and colour usage, among other things. All comments awaited with anticipation. Courcelles 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if one of the directors wants to move things around, the 2007 nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/New England Patriots seasons/archive1. Courcelles 16:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from WFC
*Shameless opportunism I will review this, seasons lists are a somewhat of an interest of mine. But while I'm here, do you have any idea where I could track down more information on this guy's background in American football? —WFC— 16:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best I can find is someone by that name was put on Injured Reserve in the preseason of the 1982 season, see [2]. (It doesn't say preseason, but it must be, as the Patriots and Philadelphia did not play in the regular season of 1982. This may not be an RS, but indicates that injury was career ending. That also helps me place his college career, since Furman won conference championships in 1978, 1980, and 1981. So if he was there for two of them, he either left Furman after the '80 or '81 campaigns. If it's '81, he never played a regular-season game in the NFL. I don;t know how much more there is going to be out there. Courcelles 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did come across Britball, but came to the same conclusion on its reliability. But there is now enough evidence to conclude that this Terry Smith is the one who was at the Patriots over that period, which makes the first source a valid one. Thanks for the help, I'd never have found that! —WFC— 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical bits Image is fine, alt text is there, no DABs or dead external links. Might be worth dropping User:Pats1 a message though, as he is a major contributor and a currently active user. —WFC— 16:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFC

  • At a glance the sourcing is all reliable, but it's not entirely clear what is being sourced in the table. Consider adopting the approach that List of New York Cosmos seasons takes with the general references.
    • The entire table is sourcable to both of the web links, and up to 2001 can also be found in the books. However, the two books are there more to support in-line citations, so broke out to their own section.
  • A key is needed for the abbreviations used in the awards section.
    • Key added
  • One thing that probably should be cited inline that currently isn't is the penultimate line, the 21-15 record in playoffs.
    • Found a separate list of all Pats playoff games, though to get to 21-15 requires a little counting, but source added.

Overall this looks decent. I'll be back with more over the next day or so. —WFC— 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Courcelles 17:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from WFC

  • What makes Pro Football Reference a reliable source?
    • See here, this seems to come up every once in a while.
  • Do you reckon you could start the second paragraph with something along the lines of "Since the first Super Bowl in 1967..." (it might require tweaking later in the sentence). It would give added context to the sentence, particularly for casual readers.
    • Reworked.
  • Possibly worth a footnote for the differing rules for ties over the years? I say that because the Patriots will surely have been involved in at least a couple of games over the last 30 years that were level after 4 quarters.
    • Meh, all the ties were pre merger, and I can't find any sources that even discuss ties in the old AFL. Added a note that regular-season overtime was introduced in '74.
  • Is it standard practise for § to be used in American football season lists? It's just that a lot of screen readers won't be able to recognise it, negating its value somewhat (technically the same goes for *, but that's professionally used in several sports, so IMO is acceptable to use until an accessible alternative is provided).
    • We've had this discussion recently, and one of the accessibility gurus told us the section symbol was perfectly fine. Courcelles 16:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that January and February postseason results are considered part of the previous year's season probably merits a footnote. For instance, the bottom three lines (correctly) say "1960–2010", but a casual reader might not realise that the Patriots' brief playoff campaign was actually played in January 2011.
    • Note added.
  • The newly introduced key may open up the possibility for a second image.
    • I'd have loved something older, but we seem to lack anything suitably licensed from decades past, so used Brady.

—WFC— 08:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notable sources (such as the Toronto Star) should be linked on the first occurance. —WFC— 08:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a stylistic thing, and I absolutely can't stand turning the references section into a sea of largely useless bluelinks. Courcelles 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've left this uncapped because I don't consider it resolved as such, but I conceed that it probably is personal preference, so won't let it affect my support. —WFC— 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a couple of spot checks on the references tomorrow, and provided there are no problems there I'll be supporting. Thanks for the speedy responses. —WFC— 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Spot checking didn't throw up any concerns. All other (substantive) points resolved. —WFC— 13:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be appropriate to have a statistics section with how far they got at the end of the season. Nergaal (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would be very difficult to do, considering terms like "Divisional Playoffs" have, at times, been either the semi-finals or quarter-finals, the possibility of first-round byes, the aberration of 1982, and the lack of RS's that would help reduce this exercise from being OR. I've added some info about how many times they've reached the playoffs in total, and played in and won/lost a conference championship after the merge (A non-existent term before it), but the number of different playoff schemes used since 1970 is rather beyond this article (National Football League playoffs doesn't really do a great job of explaining the changes in terminology in places). Courcelles 03:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Now then, an odd one, not sure that caption is a grammatically complete sentence... if not, no period. If was "posed" rather than "pose" I'd buy it...
    • Removed period.
  • Not at all keen on the repeat of "Superbowl" all over the place. Perhaps just resort to the Roman numerals with the wikilink?
    • Piped the links.
  • "was founded in the 1966 season, the first four were contested between" doesn't work for me with just a comma between these clauses, perhaps a semi-colon.
    • Done.
  • "After the merge" could be BritEng but the noun is "merger" not "merge" generally...
    • AmEng can go either way, actually. Switched it to merger throughout for consistency.
  • And, to a non-expert, there's no indication as to what actually merged?
    • It already says, "The team became part of the NFL when the two leagues merged in 1970." a sentence after saying what the American Football League was, and links to an article about the merger.
  • "In In their 51-year history" repeated In.
    • Embarrassing, removed.
  • " they have an overall regular season record of 401 " last team mentioned was Indianapolis, so need to reiterate Patriots for "they" here.
    • Done.
  • Dallas Cowboys is overlinked, and I'm sure you'd agree the second time round you could just say Cowboys.
    • Done.
  • "1st or 2nd " would prefer prose, so "first or second" works better for me.
    • Done.
  • "except Belichick's first." perhaps ".. first season." would be clearer?
    • Not totally necessary, but done.
  • Put (MVP) in after the "Most Valuable Player" bit of the prose for non-experts.
    • Done.
  • AFL champions part of the key, while not used, doesn't have a symbol for accessibility.
    • Added the Dagger.
  • Why is Champions capitalised in the key? The pages they link to just have "champions".
    • Fixed.
  • Same with "Wild Card Berth", are they really all capitalised?
    • "Wild Card" must be capitalised, but not "berth"; fixed.
  • And Postseason Results really must be Postseason results.
    • Done.
  • Not sure what T-3rd means. Suggest the key is expanded to help us out, including the fact the season 1960 links to the overall football season while the team 1960 links to the Patriots' season.
    • Added more to the note for that section; T indicate a tie for that position.
  • "1960–2010[l], includes" move note post comma.
    • Done.
  • In that same line, why isn't Ties = 0 like all the rest of the table?
    • Added an emdash. Ties are impossible in the playoffs.
  • Any reason why "NFL Offensive POTY" shouldn't be "NFL Off. POTY" like the other offensive title?
    • Done.
  • Bibliography - ISBN numbers have different formatting but seem remarkably similar. Any reason?
    • Changed both to ISBN 13. The bot that adds the dashes hadn't been by since the second book was added.
  • Ref 24 is dead.
    • Looks like I filled the citation template out incorrectly, couldn't find the original again, so replaced.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks for the exhaustive commentary. Courcelles 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all the points in my "exhaustive commentary" (!!) have been resolved... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support – Did most of my reviewing before the FLC on the article's talk page. Noticed one more thing while re-reviewing: Note a says "The Season column links to an article about each season in the league." The list doesn't deal with just one league, since the Patriots have been in the AFL and NFL. The sentence could use some adjusting to reflect that. Otherwise, everything looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the note, thanks for both of your reviews. Courcelles 02:40, 6 March 2011 (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_New_England_Patriots_seasons/archive1&oldid=1089079373"