I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:
1. Prose: the prose is not professional ("this time losing to the Detroit Lions in a playoff", there are a lot of colloquial terms ("openly flirted") and weasel words ("Knox was unable to recreate the magic of his earlier tenure). Dashes need fixing, season records need to have a tooltip explaining what they mean, and overall the prose reads very unencyclopedic.
2. Lead: the lead is excessively long, overly detailed and is tagged as such. There are also a ton of duplicate links in the lead.
3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks any inline citations in the lead. Sources lack consistent formatting and need to be archived. There is no need for the "List" template in Allen, Knox and Vermeil's "Accomplishments" column. The "Notes" section is almost completely unsourced.
4. Structure: the key needs to be reworked, as the number of coaches and winning record can be replaced with tooltips in the table. The different awards won by the coaches should be linked. The table needs to be sortable. The images need to be increased to 100px (imho) to be useful. To tone down some of the coloring in the table (which to me is I would drop the coloring for "HoF as a player" as not exactly relevant to this list.
Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table and no alt text on the photos.
The list was nominated 15 years ago when standards were quite different, and the list went through a massive expansion of the lead that was never properly cleaned-up/sourced. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 14:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this needs to be delisted. This is maybe the single worst case of lede expansion I've ever seen. ToaNidhiki05 18:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would be bad, I didn't think it was gonna be that bad. ULPS(talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it helps, but I restored the lead as it was prior to the colossal expansion...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzo_fan2007, being an avid Rams fan since they moved back to Los Angeles (I'm a native of that city and currently live in the metro area), I'm going to attempt to salvage this list. Bear in mind, I've never done any featured list work on anything sports-related outside of Olympic medal tables, and therefore I'll probably need advice. Looking at the list. I feel like the lead introduction does not need to entail the entire history of the Rams since that seems to be more appropriate on the respective team history article page and/or the season history page. Lookimg at the most recent gridiron football head coaches lists to be promoted to featured status, I think the format should look like List of Georgia Bulldogs head football coaches or List of LSU Tigers head football coaches. I think it could also begin with a brief summary of the team's location and stadium history.
I'd like to also mention that my laptop in my new home is currently not working. So I can only do work on featured lists primarily Wednesday through Friday whem I'm at my old home. Furthermore, I'm currently working improving a few Oscar ceremonies lists (Namely, the 96th Oscar nominations list will be announced this coming Tuesday with the winners announced on March 10. I plan to submit the list for FLC in July). I also plan to help RunningTiger123 in helping get the 75th Primetime Emmy Awards to FL standards. So please be patient with me.
Gonzo_fan2007, If you want to check out the progress of me improving this list, you can track it at this sandbox. I am currently focusing on rebuilding the coaching record table, though I have done a little bit of the intro paragraphs. I don't want to mess up the table on the actual page for the sake of Rams fans who want to still view the article, and it gives me a reference point. As you can see it is based off heavily from List of Green Bay Packers head coaches. After I'm done with the table at minimum, I will archive the links and transfer the copyedited table to the main list. Then I will work on the introductory paragraphs. Let me know if you have any suggestions or if there is anyone willing to rewrite the introduction. I'm might be slow on introductory paragraphs for a subject I've not tackled yet.
Gonzo_fan2007, I've finally transferred the copy-edited version of the table from the sandbox to the actual list. As you can see, it is modeled heavily on the List of Packers head coaches. Meanwhile I have rewrote the entire intro for the list on the sandbox. I tried to brief give an overview of the team's coaching history. However, unlike the Packers who had 15 coaches in their history, the Rams have 28. Therefore the intro is one paragraph longer. If you have any suggestions on the list. Feel free to give me feedback.
Birdienest81, it looks a whole lot better, nice work! I'll try to do a closer review in the next few days and let you know if I notice anything :) « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 02:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. --PresN 01:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This became an FL in 2007 and kept as an FL in 2009, when the standards were nowhere near today's standards. At the time, the article had more focus, rather than today where the article just includes indiscriminate amounts of WP:TRIVIA. Most of these stats are sourced entirely to ESPNcricinfo, which in part is because too many of the stats listed aren't interesting enough to a broad audience to be featured in any non-database publications. And apart from the lead, there is almost no text to explain the endless numbers of tables. Of the main article sections:
"Team records" section is mostly okay, as it focuses on the main records that people would expect to see. However, things like "Kings of league" are trivia, and that one is also unsourced
"Bowling" Overall section has so much junk- like 4 wicket hauls, which are not generally counted (as five-wicket hauls are, and they're already listed) and "Most consecutive matches taking at least one wicket", which is just trivia.
"Fielding" section is mostly okay, as it's concise
"Partnership" section is again concise
"Other" section is basically just being used as a catch all for whatever trivia people can find farming through ESPNcricinfo database. The worst offender being a grounds list which is all English grounds because England has hosted the WC way more times than anyone else. No encyclopedic value to most of these stats
In terms of the FL criteria, my assessment is as follows (pass/?/fail is my assessment of the criteria):
Prose: the prose that is there is acceptable (Overall:pass)
Lead: the text in the lead is acceptable, though some of it is not sourced anywhere in the article (Overall:?)
Comprehensiveness:
it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items- no, as it's just tables without text to accompany it (Overall:fail)
statements are sourced where they appear,- mostly yes, albeit just to databases. Some stats are using WP:SYNTH e.g. for the Australia streak where the source lists 34 matches, but the article claims 27 win streak by removing some ties/no results. Needs a proper source to say they are counted as winning 27 wins in a row (Overall:?)
In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists Not enough text in this article, tables alone are not sufficient in lists, they must be accompanied by significant amounts of explanatory text (Overall:fail)
Visual appeal: Very little text and way too many tables, thus no visual appeal (Overall:fail)
Media files: A few relevant images, though captions could be more explanatory about their relevance to this article e.g. what CWC records do they hold, rather than just saying "This is Ricky Ponting". Images also lack WP:ALTTEXT (Overall:?)
Stability: Some editing due to ongoing 2023 Cricket World Cup, but no edit warring (Overall:pass)
Therefore, it seems clear to me that unless a massive overhaul of this article is done, to focus scope, remove trivia and greatly increase the amount of prose related to the statistics tables, thus article is well short of current criteria to be a FL. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a first look, the list suffers from being too long and without enough context. I don't feel confident that I understand FL criteria at all, but there are examples of where this list is simply a bunch of statistical tables with pretty flags, many of which have too many columns in them anyway - for example, the run scorers table could easily lose the average, 50s and 100s columns and one of the matches or innings columns; it probably doesn't need the rank column either as there are just five listed and I don't actually see the need for sortability either.
Some the tables (King of tournament, for example) I don't actually understand what they're showing. With some consensus about which tables to remove and a commitment to watch the article we could probably get somewhere close to a reasonable list (and I'm willing to do this alone if necessary), but I imagine this might be better delisted first and then anyone who has an actually commitment to featured listing could re-nominate it perhaps. But there's probably no point even attempting that until after the current tournament is complete Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My take on these issues:
I don't think FLCR #3 is an issue; FLs only need annotations where appropriate, but if the tables are sufficiently self-explanatory, no prose is needed, and I've certainly never seen the assertion that a FL needs "significant amounts of explanatory text" (for instance, I worked on a recently promoted FL that lists almost 400 items and has minimal/zero prose outside the lead, and no concerns were raised).
The overall list structure is fine but table formatting is a mess (this spills into visual appeal as well). The team records tables are closest to good formatting, but they are missing row/column scopes and table headings, and several inappropriately use rows at the bottom spanning the full width as footers/notes. Other sections are worse (I'm particularly interested to know how the sorting arrows under Partnership were hidden – never seen that and it's definitely wrong).
I don't know enough about cricket to know if all of these stats are relevant, but I wouldn't be surprised if some are trivial.
References are out of date in many cases; access dates should fall after the most recent date for the section they cite.
It doesn't look like much has changed in the month or so since the FLCR page was created, so I'm leaning towards delisting. But The Rambling Man did a lot to update the list during its first FLRC period in 2009, so I think he deserves a notification and a chance to respond alongside the original nominator. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one option would be to revert back to the last FL state, update the records and then have a think about what else might want to be added? That's probably the least painful version if we want to maintain this as FL Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, it's tricky; FLs were not held to the same standard in 2009 as they are now, so there are still issues (missing rowscopes, poor table structures [using line breaks to line up different cells], some MOS issues), and adding four tournaments' worth of stats is no small ask itself. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gave this 15 minutes or so and came to the cam conclusion really. It's possible perhaps to rescue this, but for something that I don't really think has much value anyway, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Delist this and then at least we can gut the worst of this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joseph2302, Blue Square Thing, The Rambling Man and RunningTiger123, I have just completed a complete rewrite of this list in order to bring this back up to the FL standards of today. If you could please review and let me know whether you have comments that would great. Thanks – Ianblair23(talk) 09:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting is much better now, though it doesn't look like the table footers use proper syntax (they're just regular rows set to sort at the bottom). I am still concerned that some tables are pretty trivial; I'm not a cricket expert, but something like "Highest partnerships by wicket" feels a bit contrived. It is also not clear where the ODI records come from, and the equals sign for ranks can sort incorrectly (see "Narrowest win margins (by runs)" for an example). RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a bunch of work done here, with no opposes after 3 months and no discussion for over 6 weeks. I fixed the one sorting issue, and the "stuck at bottom" rows are fine (I think). The content issues remain, but without a consensus about the inclusion criteria, I'm going to go ahead and close this as keep for now. --PresN 23:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:
1. Prose: the prose is not professional, with short choppy sentences, as well as long run-on sentences.
2. Lead: the Lead could use some work, maybe highlighting some key coaches or eras of the team's existence. Also, needs to be updated.
3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks any inline citations in the lead and limited inline citations in the table (just to a few of the awards). Excluding source 5, all the other inline cites are to dead links. The general list of references include a few dead links as well. It is also very unclear where the whole table itself is cited to.
4. Structure: the structure of the table doesn't coincide with the accepted structure of these lists, specifically the summary of total wins. Also, the inclusion of "owners" doesn't seem consistent with other season lists.
Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table, in the legend (using just colors) and no alt text on the lone photo.
The list was nominated 15 years ago when standards were quite different. That said, the complete lack of sourcing and accessibility issues bring this up to becoming a need to either improve or delist. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely needs a near total rework. I might have some time to take a stab at resolving these problems, but as-is there's clearly problems. ToaNidhiki05 18:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a heads-up, Gonzo_fan2007, I'm taking up the challenge here. I've reworked the table to be compliant with policy - I think. Take a look and let me know. It now has proper citations and formatting, and I removed the owner column. I've also reworked the entire lead, adding citations to all claims. I also added the alt text. Let me know if anything else is needed. ToaNidhiki05 19:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Nice (quick!) work Toa Nidhiki05. A few more nitpicky things:
You can use the ((Abbrlink)) template for the player/coach awards (i.e. COTYTooltip Coach of the Year)
In the legend, add a non-breaking space before the icon (i.e. Conference champions #). Also do this in the table or make it superscript.
Use the ((Win–loss record)) template for all the records in the table.
You could add a few notes clarifying some things. Other season lists have notes for when coaches have been fired mid-season and when the NFL has changed the number of games in a season. See List of Green Bay Packers seasons for a few examples.
Ref 25 needs an access-date.
I'm not sure the list of general references or the external link is necessary anymore. I also have seen a "See also" section with History of the Carolina Panthers in it.
I don't have any major qualms with it after those items. Amazing work! « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 22:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gonzo_fan2007, I believe I've handled all of these except the Win-loss record in table. Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean in the coaches column? ToaNidhiki05 02:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator now has no issues and no one else has commented, closing as kept. --PresN 04:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Delist. I see lots of references to offline books. Until someone goes through this article line-by-line and marking what's verified and what isn't, it's better to be safe than sorry. SnowFire (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above; we can't trust the referencing. Hog FarmTalk 14:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.