Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Francisco 49ers 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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC).

List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks

 * Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be of featured list quality. This is the 13th featured list I've been involved in at FLC and the third first-round pick list. This list was re-done based on the recently promoted List of Detroit Lions first-round draft picks (promoted in December). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14
Non-expert prose review.
 * Link San Francisco 49ers on first instance.
 * Is there a reason why Season, Pick, Position, and College table heading titles aren't included in the key/legend box as with the Detroit Lions list? I think for consistency with the FL format, perhaps it is worth adding that too. (totally independent of this review, but the Chicago Bears list might also benefit from the same, if not too much work).
 * Optional : any more notable drafted players with image(s) that can be included?
 * That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Pseud 14: I've linked to the team on the first instance. I actually removed that portion of the key (season, pick, position, and college) from the Chicago list because Gonzo Fan2007 made a good argument that those portions of the table were self explanatory and didn't really need to be included in the key. I've removed it from the Lions list and the other several first-round draft pick lists I've been working on. I've also added more images to the list. Thank you very much for taking the time to review this list! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Changes look good and happy to support on prose.Pseud 14 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * In addition to the above......
 * "The 49ers have drafted at first overall" - maybe this is an American usage I am not familiar with, but to me "The 49ers have drafted first overall" sounds more natural
 * "one of whom, Lance Alworth" => "one of these, Lance Alworth" (using "whom" doesn't work after a semi-colon)
 * One the 2008 row, the final punctuation mark is after the footnote. It should be before it.
 * That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback @ChrisTheDude, I've implemented all of your suggestions. As for the "American usage", I wouldn't know, I'm Canadian! I think it was just a mistaken word left in at one point. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support from Gonzo_fan2007
 * of the National Football Conference (NFC) in the NFC West division. - could you change this to of the West Division of the National Football Conference (NFC) so we don't duplicate NFC so close to each other?
 * In the sentence about the gold rush, you could add that they were founded by Tony Morabito, which would already be cited to the 49ers source.
 * three times and selected Harry Babcock in 1953, Dave Parks in 1964, and Alex Smith in 2005. -> three times, selecting Harry Babcock in 1953, Dave Parks in 1964, and Alex Smith in 2005.
 * At the end of the lead, about Lance Alworth, maybe replace "instead" with and never played for the 49ers.
 * Agree with the above about adding maybe a few more photos down the right side.
 * I'm not seeing the benefit to using an abbreviation for "Position". For our readers, wouldn't it just be easier to spell it out?
 * In the See also section, I think the head coaches list and the seasons list are too tangential to be included. The history and draft history articles should suffice
 * Leo Nomellini is a duplicate link in the lead
 * Source review:
 * Except as noted below, references are to reliable sources, are consistently formatted and properly cite the information provided.
 * Spot checks:
 * What makes DAZN.com a reliable source for football information?
 * Just a recommendation, but add "San Francisco 49ers" to "Team Facts" in Ref 5
 * Ref 37, 40, and 44 need the "url-access" field added « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 16:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the review @Gonzo fan2007! I've implemented most of your suggestions, and to address a few points...
 * of the National Football Conference (NFC) in the NFC West division. - could you change this to of the West Division of the National Football Conference (NFC) so we don't duplicate NFC so close to each other? – I understand what you mean by this. I'd prefer to include some of mention that it's the "NFC West" instead of "Western Division" because it is the division's actual name. I also think the capitalization of "Division" and "Western" there could be up for debate. Do you have a suggestion on how to better include the division name, or you think I should just bite the bullet and go for western division instead?
 * I don't feel strongly either way. The NFC West article notes that its full name is "National Football Conference – Western Division", so there is some precedence (I cant tell if that is cited somewhere tho). I'll leave it to you. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why am I overcomplicating this? I need to just do what the San Francisco 49ers page does for their division. That article wikilink NFC West to "Western division".Hey man im josh (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the benefit to using an abbreviation for "Position". For our readers, wouldn't it just be easier to spell it out? – My goal with abbreviation the position column was to make the table smaller and more compact for those on mobile. It's not much, but I noticed it helped a bit on my phone.
 * I guess, but at least on my mobile view I can't click on the abbreviation for the tooltip, so kind of defeats the purpose. I feel like it would be better to just spell it out. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and done so. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In the See also section, I think the head coaches list and the seasons list are too tangential to be included. The history and draft history articles should suffice – I'd argue the seasons list should be included in the see also based on the past seasons impacting the draft picks that one gets, but I do see your point about head coaches. Do you think, based on that logic, it's relevant enough for inclusion?
 * It's up to you. I definitely don't think the head coaches list is relevant. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed head coaches. Perhaps I was just doing so because I had the set of 3 (head coaches, seasons, and first-round picks) together in my mind. I've removed head coaches.
 * The NFL is heavily involved with DAZN, including recently agreeing to a 10-year partnership with them last year. DAZN is responsible for the the live streams associated with the NFL Game Pass and NFL RedZone broadcasting. They are, as far as I'm aware, a reputable streaming service who are involved in a wide variety of sports. Given their long-term partnership with the NFL, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume an explanation of the conferences and divisions of the NFL, as well as a mention of the AFL being the NFL's direct competitor prior to the merger, is reliable. I'd understand questioning them if it was a more in-depth subject, but this is more or less a surface level explanation of some of the basics of the NFL which is something I'd expect to be accurate given the context of the NFL and DAZN's partnership.
 * Ok fair enough. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll make adjustments based on your replies :) Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope I've addressed everything. Thanks again for the review !Hey man im josh (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Source Review Passed « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to do an image review when I get home from work. Dylan 620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 15:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Support from Dylan620
 * Image review as promised. This is my first time doing one, so bear with me :)
 * All images are licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons, and they contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
 * Captions are excellent, with well-written prose and adequate sourcing.
 * All images have descriptive alt text. My only suggestion is that I think it may be helpful to describe the colors of the uniforms, but that is coming from someone who does not have much familiarity with the topic area.
 * Each image is well-positioned. I like how there's something of a train that initially runs alongside the right edge of the main table.
 * Dylan 620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dylan620: Thank you so much for the review! I think describing the colours isn't particularly useful in this context and if I started describing colours I'm not sure where it'd be best to stop. I believe, without the colours, the description of being in the team's uniform should be adequate. My goal was to describe what's in the photos with the thought in mind that further elaboration could be sought out if necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem! That sounds reasonable enough to me, and it felt a little bit like a nitpick anyway. I'm comfortable supporting on images. Dylan 620  in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 09:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Promoted. -- Pres N  03:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


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