Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Philadelphia Eagles 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Philadelphia Eagles seasons

[edit]

List of Philadelphia Eagles seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break from the Olympic medal table lists to nominate the list of seasons for the reigning Super Bowl champions, the Philadelphia Eagles. This is my fifth NFL team seasons list and, as always, I will do my best to respond in a timely fashion and to address any and all questions, issues, and critiques that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Formatting is consistent.
  • Ref 6: DAZN doesn't seem to have strong editorial standards. This one should be easy to replace, and move up to support the preceding sentence.
    • Ref 2 can similarly be replaced.
  • Ref 78: ": The..." is not part of the headline.
  • Notes H and J: "American conference" etc. are proper nouns, so conference should be capitalized.

That's all I have. SounderBruce 21:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look and providing a review @SounderBruce. For basic information about the NFL I felt as though DAZN is a suitable source. You'd also be surprised how difficult is actually is to source some of the very basic information we take for granted. I find the DAZN source states things in a more direct way than some other available sources that expect you to simply know some aspects of the information being verified. In regards to their standards, I don't think they're making any type of leap with the information provided, again just presenting it in a more digestible way for the layman. It's also relevant that they're an official streaming platform for the NFL on a ten year deal (source). With that in mind, I think the source is acceptable, but I understand if you do not and would like to hear that if you don't think the relevant context is acceptable.
As for the conference name stuff, I've fixed that. Regarding ref 78, it actually is part of the headline when I visit the page. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NFL broadcasting deal is what raises a flag for me, as it could affect how impartial their coverage is. In this case, it's not dire so it is acceptable. UPI uses auto-generated titles based on the first few words in content for their older releases, so it should be fixed or replaced with a newspaper's run of the same content (e.g. this clipping) that has a proper title. SounderBruce 22:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: I agree, if it were anything less than indisputable information regarding the structure of the league or something similar, I'd be looking elsewhere as well. I'm personally flabbergasted with how the league doesn't just straight up lay out their structure anywhere I can find, and sources are incomplete in their explanations of the conference vs division structure. That's why I resorted to using the DAZN references. As for the UPI ref, I've replaced it with the clipping you've provided, which I'm very much appreciative for. I'll keep this in mind for future UPI reference I find and use, and I'll search for Newspaper replacements for that reason instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on sourcing. Replacing the DAZN source is a nice-to-have rather than a must in this case. SounderBruce 03:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

I am not very confident in my reviewing capabilities but I have two minor suggestions:

  • The lack of daggers and asterisks accompanying coloured cells of the postseason results column. I see that it’s done in other columns, so perhaps it doesn’t need to be done in the results column but I am under the impression that the symbols are supposed to accompany any cell that is coloured for accessibility reasons.
  • The wording of "No division has had all of its members make multiple Super Bowl appearances, except for the NFC East, the members of which have all appeared in at least five Super Bowls." feels like it could be streamlined a bit. It just reads clunky to me as the sentence that comes before that is already referring to the NFC East. Like maybe "It is also the only division that has had all of its members make multiple Super Bowl appearances, with at least five each."

— Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying @Pyropylon98, I've been away for work for most of the last week.
  • The lack of daggers and asterisks accompanying coloured cells of the postseason results column. I see that it’s done in other columns, so perhaps it doesn’t need to be done in the results column but I am under the impression that the symbols are supposed to accompany any cell that is coloured for accessibility reasons. – This is actually an intentional thing to limit the spam of symbols and shading. Winning the conference is appropriately highlighted in the conference column, as is the winner of the league in the league column. The colouring is already highlighting / summarizing this aspect of things.
  • The wording of "No division has had all of its members make multiple Super Bowl appearances, except for the NFC East, the members of which have all appeared in at least five Super Bowls." feels like it could be streamlined a bit. It just reads clunky to me as the sentence that comes before that is already referring to the NFC East. Like maybe "It is also the only division that has had all of its members make multiple Super Bowl appearances, with at least five each." – I get what you're saying, but your wording didn't feel exactly perfect to me, not that my new wording does either... I changed it to It is also the only division in which all of its members have made multiple Super Bowl appearances, with each team appearing in at least five Super Bowls.
Let me know your thoughts @Pyropylon98, and thanks for taking a look and offering feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on this review, as I haven't heard back from you @Pyropylon98. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah I read through it earlier, I have no comments, looks good and thanks for clarifying the info on shading/symbols. — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
guess i should say support — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Abbreviations such as "WPMOY" should be included in the Legend atop the record-by-season list so that those whose devices don't display abbr/abbrlink will be able to more easily understand what the abbreviations mean.

--MikeVitale 22:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @MikeVitale: Sorry for the delay in responding to this here. Respectfully, I don't think that's necessary in this case because screen readers would still be able to get the relevant information from the abbrvlink, while those on mobile would still be able to preview the link with ease (as I do sometimes on the app). I think it would end up making the legend far too large, and the legend is simply meant to highlight things that are not as easily identifiable and apply to larger parts of the article, as opposed to a specific acronym which is explained with the template. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully ... Support.
I have never run across this {{abbrlink}} thing before, so I checked out the page on my phone, looked at the code in my browser, and I learned something new. Thanks! --MikeVitale 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 22:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Philadelphia_Eagles_seasons/archive1&oldid=1285317909"