Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present)/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, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Contents
Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) edit
Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Every draft selection by the Green Bay Packers since the modern draft began in 1970. As always, happy to address any concerns or comments. Thank you for taking the time to review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14 edit
- (the Canadian Football League [CFL] was also included in this supplemental draft). -- I think the flow of the prose should be fine if you remove the parenthetical, and then enclose "(CFL)".
- Since the "position" and "college" columns are sortable, items should be linked every time, as there's no way of knowing which repeated item will come first.
- I can't find an MOS on this (please let me know if I am missing it), but in any case I would look to WP:IAR as these are all very short tables with not a lot of overlap in positions/colleges. I think in one draft the Packers haven't drafted more than 3 players from one college and maybe 5 of the same position. Meaning any sort would generally still provide the link in a typical view. If this was one big table, I would agree. The article is pretty big as is, and the addition of all the linking would only make it bigger. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: I’ve always referred to comments from the coords on this. If you revisit discussions from the FLC talk page archive, FLC coords including PresN and formerly TRM have always indicated in their reviews/responses that in sortable tables, WP:OVERLINK is an exception and WP:REPEATLINK applies, regardless of the size of the table. [2] [3]. Hopefully that provides clarification. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14 and ChrisTheDude:, I don't mind implementing it, but I feel like the benefits don't outweigh the costs (primarily in page size). @Giants2008 and PresN:, do you have any thoughts on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to revisit once coords have weighed in. I just figured that it's an accessibility MOS that I've seen highlighted by coords, which is why I raised it. (not in any way being stubborn on this) Pseud 14 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Giants2008 and PresN: can you weigh in on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard for sortable tables is to link every instance, as the "first" link depends on what you click. That said, you don't need to re-link in subsequent tables if you don't want. --PresN 01:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN, Pseud 14, and ChrisTheDude: I have direct anchored links to each unique draft year table from Green Bay Packers draft history, meaning someone may click a link to take them directly to a specific draft class. Thus, I think it makes sense for each table to still link the first instance of each position and each university. That said, I guess I am asking for a deviation from a community norm so that every instance of a position or college doesn't have to be linked because: each table is relatively short, there are usually not a lot of instances of a specific position (so it's not hard to find the link), but most importantly, linking every position will add 1000s of bytes of data to an already enormous page. Linking positions like wide receiver and quarterback aren't that bad, just adding the brackets, but linking positions with disambiguators, like Guard (gridiron football) and Tackle (gridiron football position) are brutal. This gets real bad in the early years when basically everyone was a lineman. As an example, Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969)#1943 draft, the Packers drafted 30 players at 9 unique positions and 22 unique schools. Meaning just in this table, I would have to provide 21 additional position links and 8 additional college links. Doing that just to this draft table adds almost 1000 bytes to the article size. 35 separate draft tables, let's say 1943 was a worst case, but even assuming an extra 750 bytes per table, we are looking at an extra 26k bytes! The problem isn't as bad for this current article because the draft is only 7 rounds now, but this one has more draft tables and will grow longer each year. Assuming 500 bytes per table and 56 drafts, we are looking at an extra 28k bytes. So just linking positions/universities will grow the article size by about 15%. I just don't see enough benefit to justify that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to accept not linking every instance if there's links in all the tables; as you said, the tables are short so it's not a big deal. --PresN 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks PresN. @Pseud 14 and ChrisTheDude: does this satisfy your concerns? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to accept not linking every instance if there's links in all the tables; as you said, the tables are short so it's not a big deal. --PresN 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN, Pseud 14, and ChrisTheDude: I have direct anchored links to each unique draft year table from Green Bay Packers draft history, meaning someone may click a link to take them directly to a specific draft class. Thus, I think it makes sense for each table to still link the first instance of each position and each university. That said, I guess I am asking for a deviation from a community norm so that every instance of a position or college doesn't have to be linked because: each table is relatively short, there are usually not a lot of instances of a specific position (so it's not hard to find the link), but most importantly, linking every position will add 1000s of bytes of data to an already enormous page. Linking positions like wide receiver and quarterback aren't that bad, just adding the brackets, but linking positions with disambiguators, like Guard (gridiron football) and Tackle (gridiron football position) are brutal. This gets real bad in the early years when basically everyone was a lineman. As an example, Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969)#1943 draft, the Packers drafted 30 players at 9 unique positions and 22 unique schools. Meaning just in this table, I would have to provide 21 additional position links and 8 additional college links. Doing that just to this draft table adds almost 1000 bytes to the article size. 35 separate draft tables, let's say 1943 was a worst case, but even assuming an extra 750 bytes per table, we are looking at an extra 26k bytes! The problem isn't as bad for this current article because the draft is only 7 rounds now, but this one has more draft tables and will grow longer each year. Assuming 500 bytes per table and 56 drafts, we are looking at an extra 28k bytes. So just linking positions/universities will grow the article size by about 15%. I just don't see enough benefit to justify that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard for sortable tables is to link every instance, as the "first" link depends on what you click. That said, you don't need to re-link in subsequent tables if you don't want. --PresN 01:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Giants2008 and PresN: can you weigh in on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to revisit once coords have weighed in. I just figured that it's an accessibility MOS that I've seen highlighted by coords, which is why I raised it. (not in any way being stubborn on this) Pseud 14 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14 and ChrisTheDude:, I don't mind implementing it, but I feel like the benefits don't outweigh the costs (primarily in page size). @Giants2008 and PresN:, do you have any thoughts on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: I’ve always referred to comments from the coords on this. If you revisit discussions from the FLC talk page archive, FLC coords including PresN and formerly TRM have always indicated in their reviews/responses that in sortable tables, WP:OVERLINK is an exception and WP:REPEATLINK applies, regardless of the size of the table. [2] [3]. Hopefully that provides clarification. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pseud 14. Replies above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find an MOS on this (please let me know if I am missing it), but in any case I would look to WP:IAR as these are all very short tables with not a lot of overlap in positions/colleges. I think in one draft the Packers haven't drafted more than 3 players from one college and maybe 5 of the same position. Meaning any sort would generally still provide the link in a typical view. If this was one big table, I would agree. The article is pretty big as is, and the addition of all the linking would only make it bigger. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments edit
- "With the 2nd pick" => "With the second pick"
- "became the Packers first modern draft selection" => "became the Packers' first modern draft selection"
- "Since 1970, two Packers players have been drafted and then inducted" => "Since 1970, two players drafted by the Packers have been inducted"
- "The Packers have taken part in every modern NFL draft since" - add "1970" (and potentially lose the word "modern")
- "Mike McCoy was the Packers first-round selection in the 1970 draft." => "Mike McCoy was the Packers' first-round selection in the 1970 draft."
- "Keith Wortman was the Packers 10th round selection in the 1972 draft." => "Keith Wortman was the Packers' 10th round selection in the 1972 draft."
- "Larry McCarren, seen here in 2007, was the Packers 12th round draft pick in the 1973 draft." => "Larry McCarren, seen here in 2007, was the Packers' 12th round draft pick in the 1973 draft."
- "Eric Torkelson was the Packers 11th round selection in the 1974 draft" => "Eric Torkelson was the Packers' 11th round selection in the 1974 draft" (also full stop is missing)
- "Carlos Brown, shown here in 2003, was the Packers 12th round selection in the 1975 draft." => "Carlos Brown, shown here in 2003, was the Packers' 12th round selection in the 1975 draft."
- "Aundra Thompson was the Packers 5th round selection in the 1976 draft.2 => "Aundra Thompson was the Packers' 5th round selection in the 1976 draft."
- "James Lofton, the Packers first-round selection in the 1978 draft," => "James Lofton, the Packers' first-round selection in the 1978 draft,"
- In fact, just check all image captions for that same issue as it happens in almost every one.....
- I'll wait and see what the co-ords say about repeat linking but my understanding was also that it should be applied -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review ChrisTheDude! I believe I have addressed everything. I kept "modern" to provide differentiation between this and Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) (the use of "modern", like "modern era" or "modern draft" is used a lot in sources). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh edit
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Ref 2/6 – If the intention is to link the first occurence of NFL.com, the link should be moved from ref 6 to ref 2. For what it's worth though, you have avoided linking in this situation in the past, from what I can tell.
- Ref 9 – Add that the source is via Google News
- Refs 4/5 – In your referencing style, I thought websites are not normally linked unless they're news agencies. If so, wouldn't we want to link to the title of the article page instead of having the website as the URL wikilinked?
- "first-round" is used 11 times in the article but "1st" is not used at all. Some images use "5th round" or "2nd round" (for example). This should probably be consistent.
- I'm not a big college football guy, so excuse my question if it's a silly one, but do teams actually abbreviate to "St." instead of "State"? This may be appropriate, maybe it just looks weird to me...?
- Could link picks #2 in 1970 and 1989 to List of second overall NFL draft picks
- Could also link "second pick" in the third paragraph of the lead to the same place.
- Consider adding the
{{Use mdy dates|April 2024}}template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been - Should this be List of Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) instead? I suggest making this as a redirect if not.
- Not relevant for this review, but should Green Bay Packers draft picks redirect to a dab instead? It redirects to Green Bay Packers draft history, but a dab could include that page, the picks from 1936–1969 list, this list, and the first-round pick list.
- My hope was that
{{Green Bay Packers draft history sidebar}}would cover this. Because of the naming of Green Bay Packers draft history, I chose to stay consistent and drop the "List of" (notwithstanding the historically established "List of first-round picks"). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My hope was that
That's all I've got, good stuff on the list Gonzo! Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: all addressed or responded to. Thanks for he review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the part about "St." vs "State" is mostly a feels thing for me, so I of course wouldn't oppose on those grounds, but I thought I'd mention it.
Before I make the change, hyphen on all of them or no hyphen?
– I believe we use hyphens when talking about picks, as in first-round pick but if we said selected in the first round, we would leave the unhyphenated. I can't explain the reasoning of it all to be perfectly honest, but this is the norm that I've learned and followed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Got all the hyphens Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually just noticed something else @Gonzo fan2007. There are a number of image captions that stat something to the effect of "X person was the Packers' x-round selection in the x-year draft", but list multiple players being drafted by the Packers in that round.
- 1970 (multiple firsts)
- 1978 (multiple firsts)
- 1983 (multiple tenths)
- 1985 (multiple sevenths)
- 1995 (multiple thirds)
- 1998 (multiple sixths)
- 1999 (multiple sevenths)
- 2000 (multiple sevenths)
- 2002 (multiple fifths)
- 2007 (multiple sixths)
- 2008 (multiple seconds)
- 2009 (multiple firsts)
- 2012 (multiple fourths)
- 2013 (multiple fourths)
- 2016 (mutliple fourths)
- 2021 (multiple fifths)
- 2022 (multiple firsts)
- 2023 (multiple seconds)
- 2024 (multiple thirds)
- Seems like these should be tweaked so it's not implied they're the only picks from the Packers' in that round. Possibly by replacing with x overall pick, or one of the Packers' fifth-round selections (as an example). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got them all Hey man im josh. Thanks or catching that! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No other issues I'm seeing then. Suppport! Great stuff, despite it being for the cheeseheads. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got them all Hey man im josh. Thanks or catching that! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually just noticed something else @Gonzo fan2007. There are a number of image captions that stat something to the effect of "X person was the Packers' x-round selection in the x-year draft", but list multiple players being drafted by the Packers in that round.
- Got all the hyphens Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the part about "St." vs "State" is mostly a feels thing for me, so I of course wouldn't oppose on those grounds, but I thought I'd mention it.
- @Hey man im josh, ChrisTheDude, and Pseud 14:, just wanted to note I am currently working on Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) and will bring to FLC after this one; I will be (or already have) be implementing all of these comments there. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: Minor thing, but in working on a list of my own based on your list I noticed that ref 13 is missing the section and page number, which are section D., page 5. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh fixed on Green Bay Packers draft history. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops, got my wires crossed and for some reason mistook what I was looking at as this page. Sorry about that! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh fixed on Green Bay Packers draft history. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: Minor thing, but in working on a list of my own based on your list I noticed that ref 13 is missing the section and page number, which are section D., page 5. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. 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|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
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. --PresN 20:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted. --PresN 18:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.