Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2002 NFL Expansion 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 not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:30, 13 October 2008.

2002 NFL Expansion Draft
It has a solid, well-referenced lead section. The lead is the most comprehensive of the NFL Expansion Draft lists. The list is complete, easy to navigate, and looks good.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 08:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PLEASE NOTE: I changed the lead to comply with MOS that title of article be the subject of the first sentence.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Further comments

✅ Ok, now I see it. The second one removed.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC) ✅ I moved the youtube videos to another sentence. I included them, see the article in LonlyGirl for an example of using youtube videos as references. It is useful for readers to actually be able to watch the draft itself on video. You can't get a better reference than seeing it live with your own eyes. We use pictures, etc all the time.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC) ✅ Ok, they are moved to an External Links section and not used as specific references other than two instances: that the draft was broadcast on ESPN (I can't find any other direct support for that statement), and that there were 25 Pro Bowl players among the initial list (that was said on the video but not in any other reference).--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC) ✅ Split the references into General and Specific sections as done in 2001 NFL Draft. Doing them like 2008 WWE Draft screws up the table's sortability. --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC) ✅ But do look at the featured lists 2001 NFL Draft and 2007 NFL Draft--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You still link 2002 NFL draft twice in the lead, one is a regular while the other is a pipelink.
 * I find the youtube videos irrelevant, and clutters the flow of the lead with 6 refs verifying one sentence.
 * They would be better as External links as videos shouldn't be used to verify things unless they are minor.-- S R X  14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there not a general reference that verifies the table itself?-- S R X  02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of those that links in the lead section. Do you want them linked in the table headers or the section title? I put them in the header for now. --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per MOS, references shouldn't be in the header: you need to either insert a row and place the references there like in the 2008 WWE Draft list, or split the references column into specific and general columns, and list them in the general column.-- S R X  14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't really like tables that are forced to take up the entire page when they don't have to. It leaves a lot of ugly whitespace. Could you just let the table have it's natural widths? -- Scorpion0422 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

✅ Logo removed. And this is the complete expansion draft for that year. --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC) ✅ I have expanded the lead somewhat more, just not in the two ways previously suggested, mostly I have added references.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Oppose ✅ I changed it to a logo with a valid fair use rationale. --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC) ❌ This is common practice across all Project NFL pages, not just this one.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC) ✅ Ok, leading zeros removed.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 08:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Gary King ( talk ) 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I hate to oppose anything. I usually just don't support. But this just isn't up to par. The wiki project NFL logo looks like what it is a cheap ripoff. It's not really needed either. Surely there is more to it (the list) than this. Did you take it to Peer Review? Dincher (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still oppose the lead could be expanded more. Perhaps mention that David Carr was the first draft choice of the standard draft. References for the chose players previous team would be good too. Dincher (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm open to other suggestions to expand the lead that have to do with the expansion draft. I can't find any other information about that draft that is not included. I think that who the picks were in the 2002 NFL Draft belong in that article.  And as for references for the chosen players previous team, every noted player is wikilinked to that player's page, where their playing history is listed, and it mentions that they were selected in the expansion draft.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the image used really public domain? The logo looks an awful lot like the official Houston Texans logo.
 * Unlink years in the lead even if they link to season pages; most readers won't get that they link to specific season pages. They are fine in the table, however.
 * Remove the leading zeroes in the Pick column
 * Without the leading zeros, the sort function will sort the picks 1-10-11-12-...2-20-21-22-...3-30-31-etc.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Use nts. Gary King ( talk ) 07:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from ✅ --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC) ✅ --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC) ✅ --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC) ✅ Fixed.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ✅ Fixed.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ✅ I had called the specific references "Notes," modeled after the FL 2001 NFL Draft page, but I changed it like the Lakers page instead.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, don't link the bolded text.
 * First sentence: Why not "Houston, Texas"?
 * Some season links are linked more than once.
 * Put consecutive inline citations in order: [8][9] instead of [9][8]
 * The references are listed on each citation in the order of importance of the reference. For example, the NY Times would get precedence over profootball weekly, which gets precedence over about.com, which gets precedence over youtube.  The numbering comes by way of the order in which they are cited in the article.  That's how Harvard does it in their Blue Book: for example, you would cite the paper of record, the NY Times, first, then the "other" papers of record, in order, the Washington Post, L.A. Times, Wall Street Journal, then any other papers from major cities, then mid-size, etc. Same order for legal cites: constitutions, statutes, then court cases in that order.
 * "The Texans were prohibited from selecting a player from a team and trading the player back to that club." At first it's a team, then it's a club. Be consistent.
 * " In order to become competitive with existing teams,"
 * I would recommend dividing the "References" section into 2 subsections: general and specific sources. See Los Angeles Lakers seasons for an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "The 2002 National Football League Expansion Draft was the start of the Houston Texans new National Football League (NFL) team." Now that you've put the subject at the beginning, the sentence is not grammatically correct. For starters, "Texans" should have an apostrophe after it. How was the draft "the start" of the team? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments ✅ Changed, but please note that the all caps came from the original source. --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals.
 * Yeah, I know, but in this case MOS wants them not in all capitals even when the original source has all capitals. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.