Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Buffalo Bills first-round draft picks/archive1

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, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Buffalo Bills first-round draft picks

Featured list candidates/List of Buffalo Bills first-round draft picks/archive1

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fourth nomination in the series of NFL team's first-round picks and I hope it will be the 24th featured list in the series. I've based it on my past successful nominations, with the difference being that this team spent 1960–1967 in an independent league that later merged with the NFL whereas my other nominations spent their entire history with the NFL. The third paragraph is new when compared to my other nominations because I had to explain the difference between the AFL and NFL drafts and make mention of the merger. As such, please do pay attention to this paragraph and provide criticism and tweaks to this, I plan to use the same explanatory paragraph in other AFL team nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"The team has (singular), since 1973, played their (plural) home games"
"Then, teams agreed" - I think "Teams then agreed" would read more elegantly
" one of whom, Carl Eller" => " one of these, Carl Eller" ("one of whom" doesn't work given that the semi-colon started a new clause)
"The Bills used an addition two first-round picks" - presumably that should say additional?
"First-round was territorial selections" - no need for that hyphen
That's what I got - great work as ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review @ChrisTheDude! I've made all the changes you suggested and checked my other WIPs for similar issues :) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Images are appropriately licensed
Alt text included
Captions are relevant and no MOS issues.
Pass for image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14

All-America Football Conference (AAFC) -- I believe we only use the parenthetical with the acronyms if it is repeated in the rest of the article. I think this can be dropped, as AAFC is only used in the first instance.
Same with AFC
(with each of the eight teams receiving one of those players) -- I think this can be written as a statement instead of being in enclosures.
That's all from me on the lead. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review @Pseud 14! I was focused on a standard lead so much I missed that I defined acronyms I didn't even re-use, woops! I've made changes that I believe address all of your comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support on prose. Btw, if you have time and interest would appreciate a prose review on my current FLC. Hope all is well. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Queen of Hearts

Hey man ill get to this soon. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 23:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bills' name is derived from an All-America Football Conference franchise from Buffalo..." - All-America Football Conference franchise from Buffalo is a sea of blue; I'd unlink All-America Football Conference
Same quote, I'd say "The Bills' name is derived from a Buffalo All-America Football Conference franchise" to avoid a double "from"
"... the Bills chose Utah tight end Dalton Kincaid..." - another SOB; I'd unlink tight end

I think that's it — great work as always. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review @Queen of Hearts, I appreciate it! I'm not sure there's anything in that first sea of blue that I'm comfortable unlinking, as I think it's relevant to link the AAFC as they were a competitor to the league at one point. I've tried to reword this, but I'm having difficulty in doing so. Sea of blue mentions when possibly, but I'm thinking this is a case where it's not an improvement to do so. I'll keep thinking about how to possibly reword it and keep the flow good. I also think the suggestion for the replacement quote would either also be a SOB or would force me to unlink either the AAFC or the team that the Bills are named after.

Unfortunately, I also don't think it's useful to unlink tight end in the Dalton Kinkaid mention, as this is the format that's used across a number of first-pick lists. It's also the first mention of the position and the cleanest way to list the pick Hey man im josh (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen of Hearts: Just following up on this. How strongly do you feel about this? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: very sorry for the delay. I don't feel very strongly about it; SOB does say "when possible" after all. Your explanations sound reasonable; still happy to support. DD (main account | talk) 06:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

(Disclaimer: I saw a general request for a review on the Wikimedia Discord server)

Are we certain that team names and organizations should use the website parameter instead of the publisher? I think it fits better to have the NFL and HOF listed as publishers; for the NFL specifically, NFL.com would also be suitable for the work/website parameter.
Citation 6 needs its publication date.
Rebel Nation Magazine seems to be an alumni publication, which are generally not regarded as good sources and verge on unreliable.
Citation
Diario AS's English version isn't a high-quality source, so if possible I would like to see a replacement for Citation 13.
Citation 35 uses The New York Times, while citation 44 just uses New York Times; I think it'd be best to add The for the NY Times and Washington Post to remain consistent with some of the other newspaper names here. I also think we can replace the "subscription required" part of the citation with "limited access" given that's what nytimes.com usually provides for older articles.
Citation 42 is missing its title, author, and agency information.
Citation 43's title does not match the article title in the source.
Citation 45 should use a location parameter, as The Times by itself implies the London publication.
Citations 52 and 59 should use the publisher or agency field for UPI.

That's all I got. Sounder Bruce 06:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review @SounderBruce!

Are we certain that team names and organizations should use the website parameter instead of the publisher? I think it fits better to have the NFL and HOF listed as publishers; for the NFL specifically, NFL.com would also be suitable for the work/website parameter. – I guess I'm not sure on this one. I don't really see a good reason in some of these, especially for the HoF, to change it to publisher. I'm open to it, but perhaps I'm not understanding why it makes more sense in this context.

I simply see it as good housekeeping, but upon a further read of the CS1 guide, it seems to not be necessary. I won't hold up the nomination over whether or not the text is italicized here.

Citation 6 – Does not have a publish date

Whoops, I assumed that all ESPN articles had a visible publication date. Looks like the source code also doesn't have a definitive one.

Rebel Nation Magazine – This ref is only meant to verify that he didn't play for the Buffalo Bills, which can mostly only be gleamed from database sources at the moment, but it's difficult to find a source that states it outright. I looked for sources that would outright state that he never played for the Bills, but I'm not finding anything outside of sources from Ole Miss. Possibly not a much better source, but I replaced this entry with one from Ole Miss Athletics. Is that adequate given the context?

This newspaper article in the Democrat and Chronicle seems to be a good replacement that states Dennis's situation outright.

Diario AS's English version isn't a high-quality source, so if possible I would like to see a replacement for Citation 13. – Ultimately this was the best available source I could find that was able to verify the text of "... which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment." Other sites say it in different ways and, if you follow the NFL at all, it's obvious that the draft is the primary method of recruiting players but other sites don't outright state it as such. I think, contextually speaking, it should be adequate for the information it's verifying, but I can keep working at it if the source isn't suitable in your opinion.

Did a little search myself and didn't find anything better than AS, so it should be fine. I did find this interesting piece from The Guardian that could be useful if you decide to add the history of the draft

Citation 35... – D'oh, fixed! THE New York Times is now consistent and I added "The" before "Washington Post". I have removed the subscription needed aspect for the two NY Times articles, as they aren't actually prompting me for a subscription when accessing them.
Citation 42 – Added title and agency. No author listed for that portion of the paper.
Citation 43 – So, the snipped part for the source is actually two lists side by side. Not sure what to do with this one since I can't match the names of both. Do you have a recommendation on the title I should be using for this? Or do you think I unfortunately need to do two separate snips instead?

I think it would be best to use two clippings and two citations (or a bundle).

Citation 45 – I've added the location parameter.
Citations 52 and 59 – Updated to publisher

Thanks again for the review, I hope I've addressed all of your feedback and I look forward to your response. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more comments. This list looks great. Sounder Bruce 04:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Thanks for the further feedback!

Rebel Nation Magazine bit – I've snipped that article and used it to replace the reference I used to replace this reference, thank you for this find!
AS source – I have a pile of references I might use some day if I do decide to expand, which I've added this to, so thank you for this one as well!
Citation 43 – I've replaced this. On review, I actually didn't need the second part of the snip, though I did personally find it useful as a summary point. Never the less, its inclusion doesn't necessarily improve anything.

Thanks again, I think my referencing will improve based on our back and forth moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed. Sounder Bruce 06:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gonzo_fan2007

The Bills have held the first overall pick five times, four times in the NFL draft and once in the AFL draft, and selected Ken Rice in 1961, O. J. Simpson in 1969, Walt Patulski in 1972, Tom Cousineau in 1979, and Bruce Smith in 1985. - sort of a run-on sentence. Recommend cutting it into 2 sentence after "AFL draft".
What is the necessity of highlighting the first overall pick? The "Pick" column clearly states this already.
File:Ed oliver.jpg would be a nice, more recent pick that could be added.

That's all I got. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is, I had that concern too actually. I've split the sentence into two, do you think this is adequate or do think it needs further refinement?
Being drafted first overall is quite significant to the point that I believe drawing attention to it is a relevant and interesting thing to include. For instance, List of first overall National Football League draft picks is at over 25 thousand views in the last 30 days whereas the highest views for the series of first-round pick articles is the Chicago Bears (4,337 views), San Francisco 49ers (3,983 views), and Kansas City Chiefs (3,497 views)/
Re: Ed Oliver – That's a good image, but I try to include the most notable players on these lists and I'm not sure that Ed Oliver makes the cut given his lack of accolades. Really I'd have preferred an image of Joe DeLamielleure, but no images available for him. Do you think it needs another image?

Thank you very much for the review @Gonzo fan2007! I always appreciate your insight and views on the lists I work to promote =) Hey man im josh (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence looks good now. I don't disagree that being #1 is important, but that is already information provided in the table (and linked too). This article is about their draft picks, so you would assume the reader already understands the table and what "1" means in the "Pick" column. It just comes across as repetitive. I think one more photo, of someone more recent, would look good. Ed Oliver may not be full of accolades, but he was a high draft picks who played out his rookie contract and got an extension. Likely means he is going to play for them for at least 6 or 7 seasons, if not longer. The photo is a recommendation, as well as the highlighting. Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --Pres N 15:05, 10 March 2024 (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.