Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/2001 NFL Draft/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 Kept by Giants2008 22:29, 24 March 2013 [1].
2001 NFL Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Gman124, WikiProject National Football League
I am nominating this for featured list removal because the list does not meet current featured standards. The list has dead links, fails MOS:DTT (over reliance on color, no symbols, no scope col or scope row, etc). The colored headers are not necessary and hides the sort-ability symbol. Perhaps the tables should be merged and a "round" column could be added (that's how I would attack the list). Further, another paragraph could be added in the lead as to how the players career's went, since looking in retrospect should be easy, and a mention of Mr. Irrelevant should be added. I'm sure there are other things I am missing. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2001 NFL Draft for the promotion, done in 2007. Albacore (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have a go at fixing up this one, could be an interesting challenge as I know literally nothing about American football..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so far I've merged the tables into one, added a "round" column, removed the coloured headers, fixed the dead links, and started to expand the lead. I've never really got to grips with row scopes, though - can someone tell me where to put them......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, before that, there are some other things you can do:
- OK, so far I've merged the tables into one, added a "round" column, removed the coloured headers, fixed the dead links, and started to expand the lead. I've never really got to grips with row scopes, though - can someone tell me where to put them......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By comparison, the 2000 and 2002 drafts had one player apiece Expand the 2000 and 2002 links per WP:EGG
- Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Pro Bowl selections need a general reference, or an individual reference if you want to work.
- All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All the positions need to be linked in the table throughout. Same with schools and teams.
I'm working my way through this and hope to have it resolved by the weekend....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Think I've finally finished doing all that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the key somewhere a note should be made that # = number
- Replaced with "no." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why we need "¤" if it's unused.
- Gone -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The URL source to File:2001nfldraft.png has rotted.
- Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article uses " Archived from the original on 15 May 2007" and "Archived from the original on 2007-04-30." Stay consistent
- All date formats should now be consistent -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference 7 seems unnecessary
- It's gone -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Andre Carter needs some yellow
- Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the 66th National Football League (NFL) just say NFL since you abbreviated earlier.
- Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The University of Miami was the college most recognized in the draft, having 4 of its players selected in the first round. Rewrite the sentence. Miami had 7 players in the draft but Florida State had 9, according to our table.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a fan of the list at the end of the lead. Perhaps you could incorporate a sentence on this in the lead and remove the list. Albacore (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved it to the bottom and turned it into a table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Overall, the list doesn't look too bad after the overhaul. There are a few niggling issues left, but this should be savable.
"with Jacksonville Jaguars and Buffalo Bills receiving 4 picks each." "the" is needed before Jacksonville, as this is how it is treated in American English. I now that it would normally be excluded in British English, but we in the U.S. don't handle things the same way and the article should logically be in American English due to its subject.- Many of the notes need similar changes.
- I still see some issues in refs 18 and 42. When I have free time this weekend, I'll pitch in and go through the notes myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since there were no compensatory picks, that entry may as well be taken out of the key.Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Think I picked up everything above, let me know if I missed anything.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article looks in a decent state, good work all round, but the "checklinks" tool is still showing several dead links. Is that a failing of the tool? Also a bit of overlinking (e.g. Pro Bowl). Should the "time" be a range rather than two separate date-time groups in the infobox? Would also link positions in the infobox (such as QB and TE) as they're not obvious to non-experts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed overlinking (hopefully - let me know if you spot any others), linked player positions in the infobox, removed the times from the infobox (I think the date is sufficient for this sort of subject). Will leave investigating the deadlinks for the moment as the Wayback Machine appears to be down.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead links should now all be fixed too.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've addressed everything above except for row scopes. Even after reading MOS:DTT I am none the wiser as to where to put these. Anyone.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The row scopes are placed in each entry for the table in the row that is the most significant for the list; at least that's how I understand it. In this case, you'd probably want to have row scopes for the players. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, have done that. No idea if I've done it right, mind.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep good work from Chris, thanks and well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks up to FLC standards. My concerns have been addressed. Albacore (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this FLRC still open? It's no longer listed at WP:FLRC, but no closure template has been put on this page and the article's talk page still says that the article is a current FLRC...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2013 (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.