Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings

2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings

A lot of hard work has gone into the creation of this list. It has been checked for accuracy and is informative and well referenced. It is especially useful going into the 2006 season as a means of comparison (a 2006 version of the page is already created and ready for population as the season starts). --NMajdan•talk 14:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some text, not just bear-bone tables. E.g. explain a bit more what's Coaches Poll, how it works, who conducts it, etc etc. Also, I like how you did it on the last table (last line provides sources), I think same should be done to other tables. Otherwise, good. Renata 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. We have a References section that displays where we got info for the other tables. We pulled some bits of information from multiples sources for those other tables whereas we pulled all information about the Preseason Polls from that one source. Do you still think we need to include multiple sources in a separate bottom row for every table? Do you think the text explaining the poll would be best on this page or on its own separate article? I ask because we hope to get the 2006 version of this featured as well after the season is over and I didn't think both tables should include identical explanations. Should be work on articles for the other polls as well? There is an article for the AP Poll.--NMajdan•talk 13:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have created short articles for the Coaches Poll and Harris Interactive Poll. Does this suffice?--NMajdan•talk 16:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I really meant that after the ==Coaches Poll== there should be some text explaining the very basics: who, why, how, when. Of course, a separate article is awesome, but I still think the list should give some (5 sentence or so) heads up on what's that poll. Renata 00:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I can work on that. But, basically, the main articles themselves are only five sentences or so (at least the general explanation is).--NMajdan•talk 00:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Longer descriptions have been added.--NMajdan•talk 13:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am a major contribuitor to this article as well. --MECU≈talk 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support Renata 12:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the sentence "Only two teams appeared at the top spot of any of the major polls" on the lead is without context and doesn't really make sense to me. --Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded that sentence. Make better sense?--NMajdan•talk 13:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does, thank you. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 17:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support: please rework the lead so that the article title appears in the first sentence, and make it bold. Otherwise, great work. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--NMajdan•talk 13:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I found a couple errors a while back and corrected them, but overall looks good. VegaDark 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]