Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of BC Lions head coaches/archive2

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 22:09, 31 August 2010 [1].

List of BC Lions head coaches

[edit]

List of BC Lions head coaches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished copy-editing the article. I fixed everything mentioned on the previous FLC nom. Happy to be back on Wikipedia again. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - weak support - most everything has been addressed, but I think the first column is misleading, despite its use in other lists.
    • No. of head coaches is a bit of a strange column header. I think it would just be better to have a sentence in the lead saying "The BC lions have had x number of coaches, with y having two stints with the team" or however to get the information in there. As the heading is right now, the column doesn't denote the "number of head coaches" its the "xth unique head coach" and I think it could just be excluded, and put "Term" as the first column.
      • If you look at other "List of (team) head coaches/managers" lists, they also use the same column format. The sentences you suggested are good, but I think the sentences currently used are fine as they are. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of "statistics are correct through the end of the 2009 season", how about "updated" or "current".
    • "Thus, any coach who have two or more separate terms as head coach is only counted once." - grammar issue there.
  • Looks good other than these issues, and some more CFL featured content would be great. Canada Hky (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "of the Western Interprovincial Football Union (WIFU)[1]" missing a full stop.
  • "Grey Cup finals, winning the team's first Grey Cup in 1964" can we find a way of avoiding the rapid repeat of "Grey Cup" here?
  • "spent long tenures" do you "spend" a "tenure"? I thought it was more likely that these guys "had long tenures" but perhaps CanEng is different.
  • "Grey Cup finals" vs "Grey Cup championship", I'd be consistent.
  • "Playoffs and Grey Cup[8][2]" can we make the references in numerical order?
  • "Regular-season" is this really hyphenated?
  • Is note C referenced anywhere?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Goodraise 07:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "awarded to the CFL's best head coach annually" sound a bit awkward. How about "awarded annually to the CFL's best head coach"?
  • Another image or two would be nice.
  • The picture of Adam Rita could use some cropping.

The biggest shortcoming I see with the list is its prose. It's grammatically correct and makes sense even to readers unfamiliar with the subject, but it's just not engaging. Some passages read like "Mike did this. He did that. Mike also did something else." Lots of short statements with no flow. I realize that the kind of information dealt with in the article makes writing brilliant prose fairly difficult, but not impossible. Anyway, I'm in weak support for now. Goodraise 04:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what to say. I know that I am not a good prose writer, but I do try my best to engage the readers into the article. Are their any techniques that I could use to better engage the readers? --K. Annoyomous (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, becoming a good writer takes lots of time and practice (I sure hope to become one some day). Can't be helped. Anyway, there's lots of things you can do. For example, add some variety to your sentence structure, remove redundancies, and avoid using the same words over and over again. Compare:
  • "Rapp won the Annis Stukus Trophy in the 1977 season. He is the only Lions head coach to have won the Annis Stukus Trophy without having won a Grey Cup championship during his tenure with the Lions."
vs.
  • "Rapp is the only Lions head coach to have won the Annis Stukus Trophy, awarded to him in the season of 1977, but no Grey Cup championship during his tenure with the team."
The second is shorter and less boring. You can even replace the commas with em-dashes, if you want to impress FLC reviewers. Goodraise 10:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? --K. Annoyomous (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well,
  • when I suggested using em-dashes, I was thinking of putting them into the sentence I used as an example above. The one you put them into is so short, they look a bit disproportional.
  • The addition of "After coaching the Lions three games into the 1958 season," makes the then in "Crowe was then replaced" unnecessary.
  • The newly added then in "Dan Edwards was then named head coach for the remaining 11 games." is also superfluous. Most of the time, you'll want to make your prose less verbose, not more.
To answer your question, yes, it's better now, but there's still room for improvement.
  • For example: "The BC Lions are a professional Canadian football team based in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Lions are and members of the West Division in the Canadian Football League (CFL)."
  • Opposite case: "The current Lions head coach and general manager is Wally Buono. and tThe current owner is David Braley."
  • In the first example, you save two words by joining the sentences. Here, you save a word by splitting them. It's not wrong either way, but in most cases, shorter is better. Goodraise 23:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, shouldn't it be has instead of have in "the team have appeared in nine Grey Cup finals, and have won five championships"?
I'd love to support fully, but I'm just not yet satisfied with the prose. Sorry. Goodraise 07:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The prose has gotten better, but it's still not brilliant. Goodraise 23:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read over the lead twice, and yes, it does sound like a bunch of statistics coming into your face, but the lead is in depth and talks a lot about the subject. I just don't know how to make it flow any better. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"After coaching the Lions three games into the 1958 season, Crowe was replaced by a group of seven people, who coached the Lions for the next two games during the season."
Fixed. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Five seasons is a long tenure?
Changed to "80 or more games". --K. Annoyomous (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Elected to the Canadian Football Hall of Fame as a builder" A builder? Help for the non-Canadians?
I really can't find a reference for what a builder is specifically. I added "the category of", if that helps. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm where Goodraise is; I'm finding the prose serviceable, but not great. Probibly wouldn't hurt to track down a copyeditor who doesn't do much with sport articles.
I will do that very shortly. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 15:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the copy edit and hope it is now up to FA standards. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:30, 28 August 2010 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_BC_Lions_head_coaches/archive2&oldid=1207833233"