Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of NFL champions (1920-1969)/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 Hahc21 18:11, 14 February 2013‎ [1].

List of NFL champions (1920–69)[edit]

List of NFL champions (1920–69) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved this article considerably and I think it meets all FA-criteria. The list includes all NFL champions and runner-ups prior to the league's merger with the American Football League in 1970. I think this will be an excellent compliment to the companion List of Super Bowl champions article, also an FA. Toa Nidhiki05 02:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments a few basic things, not sure this is ready quite yet....:
  • WP:DASH & WP:YEAR for year ranges.
  • Make lead image larger so we can see it.
  • Some explanation required for 8-0-3 record (and en-dash probably too).
  • WP:DASH for scores, throughout.
  • Baltimore Colts is a dab link.
  • Single page refs should say p. not pp.
  • Notes should be referenced.
  • A PDF you use many times should be general reference, with specific references using the title or author's name, whichever is less ambiguous, and the page number only, rather than repeat the whole ref every time (see ref 3, 5–10).

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for commenting here and getting the ball rolling - you seem to get around a lot, being at my other nom. :P
I've fixed all of these. Toa Nidhiki05 19:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well clearly the title of the page needs to change to comply with WP:YEAR as well....! Also forgot to note that you're using colour-only to denote divisions etc in the NFL champions table. This contravenes WP:ACCESS, we need a symbol as well or some other clear way of denoting different properties in a table so as not to prevent everyone from understanding the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the title and added different symbols for each conference/division. Toa Nidhiki05 23:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was no need to change the title of the article. I have requested that the page be moved back to List of NFL champions (1920–1969). – PeeJay 12:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the title should have been changed per WP:YEAR i.e. drop the second "19"... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean. I'm familiar with rule but I hadn't thought of it that way. Toa Nidhiki05 17:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
Comments from Crisco 1492
  • ALT text would be nice
  • AFL–NFL merger - Since we don't know what AFL and NFL are yet, this is gobbledygook
  • 8–0–3 (8 wins, 0 losses, and 3 ties) - Perhaps use 8–0–3
  • AFL–NFL merger - Linked above
  • Does Red-Blue meet WP:ACCESS? It looks terrible in my opinion, because our links are blue too
  • Score is sorting weird (i.e. it's going 14–0, 14–10, 14–6...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed the first 4 issues and will work on the 6. As for 5, I used those two colors because they are used on companion article List of Super Bowl champions and because they match the red and blue coloring of the NFL logo. I can switch if there are alternate colors that would work fine. Toa Nidhiki05 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you should only switch it if it doesn't meet ACCESS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, I'll check to make sure. Also, I've fixed the sorting issue so now they sort properly. Toa Nidhiki05 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers.

    • I can't see any link issues, but I can see how there could be issues with them. I've replaced it with a lighter color that shows the link more clearly. Toa Nidhiki05 02:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Resolute 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Resolute
  • The table under Total championships won says Green Bay won 10 titles, but lists 11 years.
  • I really don't like the opening sentence. It resolves down to "The National Football League Champions ... were the winners of the NFL." Rather redundant. I'm not sure if you can find a way to reword that a little. Regardless, you don't need the brackets around that second use of "NFL".
  • Modified a bit to make note of the two systems used. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...they declared the Akron Pros, who finished the season with an 8–0–3 record. - Missing words. I'm sure you meant to make note of them as inaugural champions or somethimg similar.
  • Fixed, not sure how that content was removed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why every team except Chicago is linked in the lead?
  • No, I just forgot to link them. Linked. :) Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph uses the word "championship" nine times in close succession. Can you reword a couple uses to add variety?
  • Alternating between 'championship' and 'title' now. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a parenthetical note stating Green Bay won its first title in 1929, which is inconsistent the other teams
  • Not sure what that is, but I modified one bit. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I got. Cheers! Resolute 00:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there any real need to use a different symbol to denote different names the East and West divisions carried over time?
  • No, not particularly. I can change if need be.
  • Personally, I would prefer it. There's just too many symbols that effectively say the same thing. This is a case where simpler may be better. Resolute 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now I've changed it so the same symbols are used for each conference/division 'name' instead of three each. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I am offering this up only for your consideration: List of Stanley Cup champions uses parentheticals for such denotions. i.e.: (WC) That may be easier for a reader to note what conference/division the teams were members of than six obscure symbols. Feel free to disregard this suggestion if you dislike that format.
  • I would not mind switching to that, but the NFL only has one article for the divisions/conferences, not two, so there would not be a unique. I used the symbols mainly because that is what is used on the Super Bowl champions article, or something similar. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. You could link the relevant article in the key, leaving the (ED), (AC), etc. notes unlinked in the table itself. However, I do agree that this list should be relatively consistent with the Super Bowl article, therefore this may be something worth discussing internally to the NFL project, if you feel it valuable. Resolute 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see it as too big of a deal, but I will either check with the group to see if it is fine or boldly do it myself. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, no problem. As I said, I offer that only as a suggestion. Therefore...
  • Support. My concerns have been addressed. Resolute 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • The first paragraph appears to be exceedingly large. My recommendation is to split it at the point the 1932 season is mentioned, which leaves three similar-size paragraphs. Also, it leaves a paragraph on the league's playoff systems, which seems sensible for this article.
  • In that sentence, an en dash is needed in "typical win-loss system" to replace the hyphen.
  • Decapitalize second word of "AFL Champion".
  • Another "the" needed in "play the champions of AFC Championship Game".
  • I see a few sentences with a "with ... -ing" structure; they are a bit awkward, and should be avoided if possible.
  • Not sure New York City needs a link, as a straight link to the city doesn't add the same type of value to the article that the team links do.
    • New York was not a participant in all of those games - the Boston Redskins and Green Bay Packers played one title game there. That is why linked to New York, not the team. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another "Champions" could use the capitalization removed, this time in the lead photo caption.
  • In the first table, the reference column shouldn't be sortable.
  • NFL champions: "indicate the number of times that team won the NFL Champion...". "won the NFL championship" sounds like what you're looking for.
  • "as of the of the championship game."
  • We have articles for the championship games, I believe. Should they be placed in the year column, instead of the more generic season articles?
  • Another en dash needed for "win-loss" in note 4.
  • As someone who knows a little about sports history, I find it surprising that the 1921 controversy gets a note, but the 1925 controversy does not. I've personally heard of the latter, but not the former until now. Maybe they both deserve notes? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't believe I forgot that, I have added a note on it now. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments by Arsenikk
  • Regarding "8–0–3", I do not believe that a tooltip is sufficient, as it will often not be available for reuse, mobile users etc. The information is sufficiently critical because in Europe that score means 8 wins, 0 ties, 3 losses, so a casual European reader could be rather confused.
    • I see what you mean there. This article is in American English so the 8-0-3 record should be used (similar to other dates like 9/11/01 as opposed to 11/9/01), but I put the meaning of the '8-0-3' in parenthesis behind the record itself. This shouldn't be an issue in the table since that denotes them individually. Toa Nidhiki05 18:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would really have liked the site to mention the stadium, not just the city (this is for instance done in the Super Bowl list).
    • I mainly didn't put the venue there because that information is not in either citation from the NFL; the only location explicitly noted is the Polo Grounds hosting the Boston Redskins/Green Bay Packers game, presumably because all the other games were hosted in a home stadium of an NFL team. Since the game wasn't neutrally sited, it isn't as important here. In short I could add it, but it would take a while to find all the citations needed and add them. Toa Nidhiki05 18:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was the venue selected? It seems that one of the teams had a home game.
    • I don't have a source for this yet and I can't seem to find one, but the venue was chosen on a rotating basis between the two conferences. The 'home' one could decide where to play, since Green Bay played one in Milwaukee (they played home games there occasionally) instead of Green Bay and the Boston (now Washington) Redskins chose to have theirs in New York instead of Boston because they were moving to Washington D.C. after the season. Toa Nidhiki05 18:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three sites list the states, while the others do not. Please be consistent.
    • Oversight on my part, corrected.
  • There is a stray space in the 1960 attendance entry
  • Seems like all the see also links are either in the article or in the navbox, so the section should be removed.
  • I would be nice if the image was moved to the Commons. Arsenikk (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2013 (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_NFL_champions_(1920-1969)/archive1&oldid=1140185395"