Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2003 NBA Draft

2003 NBA Draft
I worked on this list the last two days using the 2003 NFL Draft featured list as a guide. I think this list can be featured, too. I provided the trade notes for round 1 only because I thought that round 2's trades were not as necessary. If there are any concerns, I would be glad to address them. Thank you. -- Crzycheetah 05:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixes needed before I will support:
 * Expand lead to more resemble the NFL article. This lead does not summarize the draft, nor does it give an adequate introduction as to what a draft is, or how the NBA draft works.  It doesn't even mention the mechanisms of the Lottery, the specifics of this year's lottery, or of the role trading plays. A sentance or two would go a LONG way here.
 * I believe that NBA Draft article should say how the NBA draft works and NBA Draft Lottery should talk about mechanisms of the Lottery. I have added info about 2003 NBA Draft Lottery, though. I am confused on what you meant by saying "role trading plays". Did you mean, "why players get traded"?
 * Column heading "College/Club Team" is inaccurate. The top pick did not go to College and did not play on a club team.  Maybe "Prior Team" or "School/Club Team" would be more appropriate.
 * I changed it to "School/Club Team".
 * Michael Petrius lists the nation he played in, but not the league, unlike players from the Adriatic League. Why not ?
 * If you click on the country's link, it will take you to their basketball league's article. For instance, if you click on France next to Pietrus' club, it will take you to Ligue Nationale de Basketball. It goes for all international teams. Adriatic league is for former Yugoslavian clubs only. Serbian, Croatian clubs play in two leagues:their national league and adriatic league).
 * Same for Carlos Delfino, and several other players.
 * See above.
 * In references section, consider expanding to a more standard Bibliographic format like MLA or APA format, especially as you are seeking featured status. A simple external link is probably inadequate.  Consider using  .  It isn't necessary in any way to use that, but the references as they are now are inadequate; they don't inlude publication information, accessdates, etc.  Also, why are the External Links not part of references?  They appear to have the same sort of information, why the distinction?
 * Since it wasn't a footnote, I didn't even think about . :)   I formatted using cite web, now. I put those external links because I didn't want to have only one external website(NBA.com) in the article, even though I used only NBA.com as a source.
 * That's it. Good luck, and I will check back on this later! --Jayron32| talk | contribs  18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. This list is going to improve a lot when your concerns are addressed fully. -- Crzycheetah 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Lead looks MUCH better. I copyedited it a bit myself to remove a run-on sentance that was hard to follow. Everything looks like it was addressed. Good job! --Jayron32| talk | contribs 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support.-- Crzycheetah 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This nomination blurs the distinction between list and article. Is this really a list? True that parts of it are presented in a list format, but the topic itself "the 2003 NBA Draft" is a historical event. And even if it could be considered a list as a whole, the only thing separating it from the original source are the footnotes indicating which draft picks were traded. But I guess if it's eligible, it's eligible. One thing that does concern me in terms of the "list" being "well-constructed" and "easy to navigate" (see Featured list criteria) is the deliberate de-linking of the team articles in the rows for second-round picks. If I was using Wikipedia to study on "second-round picks in various drafts" or whatever, I would not want to have to scroll up to the first round to access the team articles. For ease of navigation, the contents of each table cell should be wikified. — CharlotteWebb 08:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. First, as I said before, I was using NFL Draft's featured list as a guide; therefore, I assumed that if NFL's Draft is a list, then so is NBA's Draft. If we really think about it, the most important information in this article is the list of drafted players. I noticed that NFL's list had their team links delinked, so I just (yes, you guessed it) followed. It really doesn't matter to me wheether there are links in round 2 or not. Let's just wait and see if anyone else has a comment about it. I don't mind your linking all teams.-- Crzycheetah 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the logo you uploaded... you need to add a detailed rationale explaining why you feel it is permitted under fair use policy. See Non-free content criteria. — CharlotteWebb 09:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have put fair use rationale, please check it. Thanks for catching that, by the way. -- Crzycheetah 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support it's my first time voting on a featured list, so I'm not perfectly familiar with the criteria. However, I did take a look at the NHL list you said you modelled after, and well, the similarities are there. Chensiyuan 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I hope that by the end of this nomination this list is going to be better than the NFL's list. I actually think that it already is better. :) -- Crzycheetah 02:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments: From WP:WIAFL, a featured list should be comprehensive. So with that in mind, I think that the trade information from the 2nd round should be included and all other pertinent information. On a side note, I feel like somewhat of a hypocrite as I have nominated NFL lists in the past and supported NFL lists in the past and have not held them to the same standard, but in all honesty, those lists too should have ALL trade information included in the respective draft lists. So for the time being, I cannot support. Pepsidrinka 20:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I have started adding trade notes for Round 2, probably will finish in a day or two.-- Crzycheetah 22:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Object for now. The trade information is good, but none of it is referenced. See the 2007 NFL Draft for what I mean. Pepsidrinka 23:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I gave the players profiles page on NBA.com as a reference. If you think that it needs inline citations, too, then please check the one I just did for the #2 pick. Is that what you are looking for?-- Crzycheetah 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite. I did a few, the first 2 in the first round and a couple in the second round. I used my access to LexisNexis to find the sources, but I'm sure you can find reputable sources on the web, from either newspaper archives, espn, cbs sportsline, sports illustraded, etc. One of the ones I did was from epsn.com, so if you don't have access to lexis, that's the way to go. I'll try to do some more later when I get a chance. Pepsidrinka 14:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment It says "In the draft, National Basketball Association (NBA) teams take turns selecting amateur college basketball players and other first-time eligible players, such as players from high schools and non-North American leagues." Since this is no longer true it should be made clear that in the draft rules used at the time high shool players were eligible. Like "In the drafts before the one year rule (or whatever it's called)..." Also change it to past tense since what you're discussing is no longer curent (teams took...).  Quadzilla99 00:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "in this draft" to imply the 2003 NBA draft, not NBA draft in general. I don't think the rule needs to be mentioned in this article because it didn't affect this draft. I changed take->took, too. -- Crzycheetah 08:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sold on this line: "The 2003 Draft is known for having one of the most talented draft pools in recent draft history, with five all-star caliber players as well as many starting players." All-star caliber is a vague descriptor. Why not just say, "Five players from the 2003 NBA Draft have become All-Stars," or something like that? Zagalejo 08:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed that sentence. How is it now?-- Crzycheetah 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I think it looks a little better as two sentences, but overall, it works for me. Is there a specific reason why we don't list the five All-Stars within the body of the article? It's not that big an issue; I'm just curious. Zagalejo 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just think that it would clutter the lead. -- Crzycheetah 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, good for me. -- Phoenix  (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-- Crzycheetah 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support looks good and I think all the references are there, don't really see anything wrong. Gman124 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)