Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Detroit Lions 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, 20 December 2023 (UTC).

List of Detroit Lions first-round draft picks

 * Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This would be my 9th FL overall and #21 in the FL series based on NFL franchise's first-round draft pick history. I based the formatting and structure on the other 20 lists at Featured lists. As always, please let me know if you find any issues or anything that can be improved upon and I will do my best to respond and make changes as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comments by CaptainTeebs
 * If I had a nickel for every time the Lions drafted one of the greatest skill position players ever and caused them to lose their passion for football and retire in their prime, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. I'll leave comments soon.--CaptainTeebs (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @CaptainTeebs: The life of a Lions fan includes much misery and disappointment, at least for the last few decades. Never the less... I'm drinking the blue Kool aid. There is hope on the horizon that we may soon stop hearing about the Lions last playoff win being 1991 and that we've never won the division. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Very well done with this list, don't see anything to fix. CaptainTeebs (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "Moved down the draft order in trade Kansas City Chiefs" - missing a word, I think
 * Notes A and G do not need full stops
 * That's it, I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @ChrisTheDude: Done! Thanks so much for looking over the list and providing feedback =) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "The team which received this "bonus" pick forfeited its selection in the final round of the draft and became ineligible for another "bonus pick" after they were awarded the pick." I may have been responsible for this, but "after they were awarded the pick" can probably be replaced with "afterwards" since you have already established that it is in relation to the pick
 * Do you think that somethinglike the sentence "Since the first draft, the Lions have selected 91 players in the first round." might be better as the first sentence of the article (with some amendments, but so it is clear from the beginning what the topic is)?

That's pretty much it from here. (For full disclosure: I offered Josh comments on this article off-wiki, on the discord prior to nomination).Eddie891 Talk Work 15:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback and suggestions @Eddie891 (both on and off-wiki), I very much appreciate it! I've implemented your first suggestion, which definitely flows better. As for the second point, I see where you're coming from, but I'm finding it difficult to find a place for it earlier in the lead without it feeling shoehorned in.
 * First paragraph -> Intro to the team
 * Second paragraph -> General overview of what the draft is (not yet team specific)
 * Third paragraph -> More specific info about the draft in general (when it started, not yet team specific)
 * Fourth and fifth paragraphs -> Team specific facts
 * I'm open to it but I'm just not sure how without doing a larger rearrangement of sorts which I think will read more clunkily. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right, happy to Support Eddie891 Talk Work 17:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That's all. --  EN  - Jungwon  16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * EN-Jungwon
 * Is there a reason why the image of Calvin Johnson is in the footnotes section?
 * Ref 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 36, 37, 40, 43, 44; add
 * Ref 20; add
 * Ref 23; add author Max Demara and date=22 April 2019
 * Ref 30, 39; is there a better website name for this
 * Some refs have missing authors and dates. PLease add them.


 * @EN-Jungwon:
 * Calvin Johnson picture image – No, I just wanted to add another image and I thought it fit well there. In hindsight, this section is essentially treated like a reference section, so it should not actually be included there. I've moved it.
 * Ref 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 36, 37, 40, 43, 44; add – Done with "Newspapers.com" instead of "Newspaper.com" (now refs 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46). Thank you, I'll keep this in mind for future references I add from Newspapers.com.
 * Ref 20; add – Done
 * Ref 23; add author Max Demara and date=22 April 2019 – Done (now ref 25)
 * Ref 30, 39; is there a better website name for this – (Now refs 32 and 39) There's nowhere I can find on-wiki to link to, but I have changed it from "=www.prosportstransactions.com" to "=Pro Sports Transactions". Is this acceptable?
 * Some refs have missing authors and dates. PLease add them. – I believe I've added them wherever possible now.
 * On a related note, is there a better citation tool I could be using to help catch some of these things that I've missed? I find these critiques quite helpful, but after several hours working on an article I'm bound to miss one of these again if the citation tool isn't including them. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I didn't use any tools to review this list. I just went through each reference one by one. --  EN  - Jungwon  10:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Giants2008: I noticed this list is listed as needing a source review as of a couple days ago. Is this review by EN-Jungwon not enough for a source review? Or does someone need to explicitly state that a source review has been passed? Hey man im josh (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, an explicit source review is what we need at some stage. was this specifically meant to be a source review? If so, please put a bold Source review or similar in the future so that the closers can see at a glance whether this part of the review has been completed. Thanks.  Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind moving forward, thanks @Giants2008. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is more of a formatting review. I'm not sure how to do a source review so I'm no help there. --  EN  - Jungwon  09:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Source review
 * Major questions about the paraphrasing in this list:
 * Text: "is an annual event which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment", ref 8: "is an annual event [...] which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment". This is verbatim from Ref 8.
 * Text: "Detroit forfeited their 1966 first-round selection [...] to the Green Bay Packers as compensation for signing free agent Ron Kramer", ref 16: "1966 The Lions forfeited their first-round selection to the Green Bay Packers as compensation for signing free agent Ron Kramer". Again this is verbatim.
 * Text: "From 1947 through 1958 the first selection was awarded by a random draw. [...] By 1958 all twelve clubs in the league at the time had received a bonus choice and the system was abolished" Ref 12: "From 1947 through 1958, the first selection of the draft was [...] awarded to the winner of a random draw. [...] The system was abolished after 1958, by which time all clubs had received a Bonus pick.". The first sentence is practically verbatim, and the second is moving the clauses of the source around.

Unfortunately I think this source review is going to have to be an oppose (see below) for now, based on the repeated evidence of close paraphrasing and verbatim text-lifting. I have not spot-checked all sources, so the problems could be more widespread. This will need to be fixed in all cases before I strike this !vote. Sorry, Schminnte &#91;talk to me&#93; 22:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow that's embarrassing, thanks for bringing these up @Schminnte. I actually had issues with the text in the first and third quotes and that was the wording that was chosen in other lists that I had been using for reference, so I'll make sure to work on that today and, once it's been assessed as making sense and not a violation in any way, I'll replace the same phrasing in other articles. As for the second example, I do think that's a coincidence, as it's the phrasing I've been using for these types of lists, but I'll work on rephrasing it and ping again once all these issues have been resolved. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "...is an annual event which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment" – That text is taken from and used on National Football League Draft. That text, in that exact phrasing, has existed at the page since, which predates the article that's used as reference (February 18, 2021). Do you still think the text should be changed?
 * I've changed "Detroit forfeited their 1966 first-round selection [...] to the Green Bay Packers as compensation for signing free agent Ron Kramer" to "Detroit traded their 1966 first-round selection (No. 8 overall) to the Green Bay Packers for the right to sign free agent Ron Kramer.". This is arguably a more accurate reflection of the exchange and I've added a couple sources that help to support that. I didn't realize the previous text used was present in a completely separate reference than what I used for that note.
 * I've reworked the paragraph that the quotes in the third bullet point are pulled from.
 * Hopefully this addresses all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, meant to send a ping to you @Schminnte. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I'm satisfied with that. I'll strike the oppose and continue the source review. Schminnte &#91;talk to me&#93; 17:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that's all now. Schminnte &#91;talk to me&#93; 17:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Source reliability looks fine apart from one query: what makes Pro Sports Transactions a reliable source?
 * Could citations be standardised to either title or sentence case?
 * Other spotchecks seem fine


 * @Schminnte:
 * Pro Sports Transaction has never been discussed as a reliable source on-wiki, at least as far as I could tell. It's a sports database which I don't tend to give enough weight to be the only source, but I use it to help verify some minor aspects of trades. To be more specific, the overall pick numbers for later round picks are often not included in trade summaries in newspaper articles, instead being referred to as a "seventh-round selection", and not specified beyond that. In instances where I use this reference, it's only meant to support what position in the draft that those later picks end up being, which are ultimately insignificant to the article's scope, but help to provide additional context (in my opinion). This is also often the case with teams listing their own draft history as well, which is part of what makes it frustrating when trying to find more well known sources. Hopefully that makes sense and answers the question adequately.
 * It was my understanding that we don't typically look for standardization of the titles that the sources choose to use.
 * Thanks. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hey man im josh:
 * I'm more meaning about its reliability, not what it supports. The reason I ask is that it seems to be a self published source by Frank Marousek. Can you verify that he is a subject matter expert, or that the site has been used by other reliable sources?
 * As I'm more used to FAC, I didn't realise that this wasn't common here. Still, per MOS:ALLCAPS, citations should be standardised for a consistent WP:CITESTYLE.
 * Hope this helps, Schminnte &#91;talk to me</i>&#93; 17:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Schminnte: I've replaced the references for Pro Sports Transactions until I hear back the site (I've reached out to them, as I would like to use this reference in the future). As for the reference formatting, I'm going to ping @PresN about the capitalization consistency of references, as I don't believe that's ever been something that we've looked for at FLC and I'd like to get clarification from them on this. Also, I don't believe I have any references that are all caps, just capitalizations that are inconsistent among the references because I took the capitalization of the titles used by the sources, which I thought would be more appropriate than changing the capitalization that they use. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We enforce not having ALLCAPS/shouting, but that's it. We don't enforce a consistent title capitalization scheme in references; frankly neither do most people at FAC, I've only had someone bring it up to me once. I know it got into a guideline somewhere, but I personally find it a little strange to reformat ref titles to align to sentence case vs title case instead of following the actual source title capitalization. -- Pres N  01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Funnily, I was asking since that's what I've been exposed to as well at FAC. Maybe I've fallen victim to a small sample size bias, my bad. Anyway, if that's not needed then I'm happy with the source review now, so this is a pass. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:#0645AD">Schminnte</b> &#91;<i style="color:#0645AD">talk to me</i>&#93; 08:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @PresN, appreciate the quick response and clarification. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. -- Pres N  18:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.