Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks/archive2


 * 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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC).

List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks

 * Nominator(s): Debartolo2917 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this page has failed a featured list candidate nomination before (in 2011). Since then, it has been substantially improved, now at the standard other lists for first-round draft picks of NFL teams (such as List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks). In addition, this page simplifies the code in other, already featured lists, by utilizing a key with position links and a central 'align="center"' function. Debartolo2917 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Drive-by comments on refs
 * A significant number of the refs do not list a publisher
 * Ref 25 is tagged as dead
 * The two general refs are both listed as having been retrieved in 2009 yet they (seemingly) source data right up to 2021 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be up to speed now. It's incredible how so many old links just completely break. Debartolo2917 (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I forgot about this one. The article now seems to be sourced entirely to six "general references" at the bottom.  Per WP:IC, inline citations are mandatory for featured content, so everything in the article should have a reference against it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Updates on links
 * Links have been updated and I have rescinded a nomination for the Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft pick page. One think to note, I changed the notes next to each draft pick to footnotes. I do not know if that is compatible with in-line citations in the rest of the page (currently sourced as just references without direct placement). Do you know of a way to separate footnotes with references? Debartolo2917 (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See List of accolades received by The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021 film) for an example of an article which uses both footnotes and in-line citations..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Should all be updated now. Thank you for the example --- it clarifies a lot. Debartolo2917 (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

 * Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g.  becomes.
 * Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g.  becomes.
 * Note that these apply to the "Key" table as well, though that table also needs a caption: Visual captions can be added by putting + caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting + instead.
 * Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. -- Pres N  23:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just went ahead and updated both the main table and the key tables (which I split) with these formats. The only thing of note was in the position key, I did not find any reason to have row headers. It just doesn't make sense for how the key is constructed. One last thing to have your opinion on: I split the keys in a way that saved space (one underneath the other left a lot of blank, white space which did not look very nice. This construction (with column breaks) looks a little bit better, but the keys being differently shaped looks somewhat awkward. Let me know your opinion on the matter. Thanks! Debartolo2917 (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

TRM
That's all I have on a quick blast. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Some overlinking in the lead:
 * Pro Football Hall of Fame
 * Super Bowl
 * "North division " our article uses "Northern Division" with an en-dash before for the formal title. Not seeing "North division" used in this way.
 * You call Joe Stydahar a "tackle" but the key for T is "offensive tackle"?
 * "Stydahar went to have..." He went on...
 * "have a stellar career" according to who?
 * Just a quick aside, really not keen on the referencing in the lead.
 * "The Bears have not ... The Bears have only..." repetitive.
 * It seems odd that you wait to the second paragraph to tell me about the mechanics of the draft after you've already told me a whole heap about who was drafted and when...!
 * "previous Super Bowl; the Super Bowl champion selects 32nd overall, and the Super Bowl loser" repetitive, threepeat of Super Bowl in one sentence.
 * In the image captions, you have "first" but "4th" etc. As these are below 10, I'd use words every time.
 * The colour scheme in the column headings is distracting and prevents me from knowing the table is sortable.
 * No Pick -> No pick
 * The "specific" references are really footnotes so should be in a section entitled "footnotes".
 * I would much prefer to see each of the entrants cited properly and directly with a specific reference.
 * Are you still pursuing this nomination? -- Pres N  21:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am, just have been busy and not really focused on the page right now. I should be able to get to it within the week. Debartolo2917 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Should all be updated now. Debartolo2917 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment

 * I forgot all about this one and just spotted it near the bottom of the FLC page. Quick question - why doesn't the article just use the normal referencing format?  Rather than numbered refs as used in 99.999999% of other articles, there's lower case letters, but clicking on them doesn't do anything at all, so you have to scroll manually right to the bottom to find what the ref actually is.......?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.