Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2002 NFL Expansion Draft/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | 2002 NFL Expansion Draft
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 not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:30, 13 October 2008 [1].

2002 NFL Expansion Draft edit

It has a solid, well-referenced lead section. The lead is the most comprehensive of the NFL Expansion Draft lists. The list is complete, easy to navigate, and looks good.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 08:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SRX
Comments
  • The image positioning is terrible IMO. Remove the logo for the NFL WikiProject and replace it's positioning with the official logo of the Expansion Draft and make it a thumbnail with a caption, looks better in that way IMO.

 Done--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Houston Texans picked from lists of unprotected players from existing franchises. - what does unprotected mean?

 Done Changed word to "listed."--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this was the first expansion draft after the advent of the salary cap, unlike in previous expansion drafts, teams left many quality players on the list who has large contracts. - has --> had

 Done--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • They could not expose players who went on injured reserve during the 2001 summer's training camp and their list could include only one player with more than 10 years' experience. - they could not expose them? What do you mean by this?

 Done Replaced with "could not list players" to keep uniform with explanation of process.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Texans assumed the contracts of the players they selected, including all the future prorations of their signing bonuses and any guarantees or other terms. - prorations is not a dictionary word.

 Done Changed to "portion," but see dictionary definition of Proration.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the Texans cut a selection and he re-signed with his old team, the existing team re-assumed the signing bonus proration. - proration?

 Done Changed to "portion," but see dictionary definition of Proration.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The prose in the lead is really confusing, it does not explain terms and the purpose of the draft expansion really well.

 Done Fleshed out the intro.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am going to have to object this list because their is no reason explained as to why the Texans were having this draft or why they became established.

 Done Fleshed out the intro.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC) --SRX 00:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed pipelink.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Removed extra link.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Each NFL team exposed five players, and the Texans were required to claim either 30 players or $26 million in contracts (38% of the 2002 salary cap). - again with the word expose.

 Done Missed that one, it is changed to "listed." --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think salary cap should be explained in some short way because it is jargon and linking it is no help as the definition is non comprehensible to one who is not aware of football jargon

 Done I added a short explanation and changed the link to point to the NFL section of the main salary cap article.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 02:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is verifying the list? No references to reliable sources.--SRX 23:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added seven links to reliable sources that give the full list, two of which also later serve as sources for the salary-cap hits of each player. Two are also links to youtube videos of the actual draft.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • You still link 2002 NFL draft twice in the lead, one is a regular while the other is a pipelink.

 Done Ok, now I see it. The second one removed.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find the youtube videos irrelevant, and clutters the flow of the lead with 6 refs verifying one sentence.

 Done I moved the youtube videos to another sentence. I included them, see the article in LonlyGirl for an example of using youtube videos as references. It is useful for readers to actually be able to watch the draft itself on video. You can't get a better reference than seeing it live with your own eyes. We use pictures, etc all the time.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • They would be better as External links as videos shouldn't be used to verify things unless they are minor.--SRX 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ok, they are moved to an External Links section and not used as specific references other than two instances: that the draft was broadcast on ESPN (I can't find any other direct support for that statement), and that there were 25 Pro Bowl players among the initial list (that was said on the video but not in any other reference).--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there not a general reference that verifies the table itself?--SRX 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, all of those that links in the lead section. Do you want them linked in the table headers or the section title? I put them in the header for now. --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per MOS, references shouldn't be in the header: you need to either insert a row and place the references there like in the 2008 WWE Draft list, or split the references column into specific and general columns, and list them in the general column.--SRX 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Split the references into General and Specific sections as done in 2001 NFL Draft. Doing them like 2008 WWE Draft screws up the table's sortability. --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't really like tables that are forced to take up the entire page when they don't have to. It leaves a lot of ugly whitespace. Could you just let the table have it's natural widths? -- Scorpion0422 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done But do look at the featured lists 2001 NFL Draft and 2007 NFL Draft--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I hate to oppose anything. I usually just don't support. But this just isn't up to par. The wiki project NFL logo looks like what it is a cheap ripoff. It's not really needed either. Surely there is more to it (the list) than this. Did you take it to Peer Review? Dincher (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Logo removed. And this is the complete expansion draft for that year. --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Still oppose the lead could be expanded more. Perhaps mention that David Carr was the first draft choice of the standard draft. References for the chose players previous team would be good too. Dincher (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm open to other suggestions to expand the lead that have to do with the expansion draft. I can't find any other information about that draft that is not included. I think that who the picks were in the 2002 NFL Draft belong in that article. And as for references for the chosen players previous team, every noted player is wikilinked to that player's page, where their playing history is listed, and it mentions that they were selected in the expansion draft.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have expanded the lead somewhat more, just not in the two ways previously suggested, mostly I have added references.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Oppose[reply]

  • Is the image used really public domain? The logo looks an awful lot like the official Houston Texans logo.

 Done I changed it to a logo with a valid fair use rationale. --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlink years in the lead even if they link to season pages; most readers won't get that they link to specific season pages. They are fine in the table, however.

 Not done This is common practice across all Project NFL pages, not just this one.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the leading zeroes in the Pick column

 Done Ok, leading zeros removed.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 08:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Gary King (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Per WP:LEAD, don't link the bolded text.

 Done --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First sentence: Why not "Houston, Texas"?

 Done --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some season links are linked more than once.

 Done --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Put consecutive inline citations in order: [8][9] instead of [9][8]
    • The references are listed on each citation in the order of importance of the reference. For example, the NY Times would get precedence over profootball weekly, which gets precedence over about.com, which gets precedence over youtube. The numbering comes by way of the order in which they are cited in the article. That's how Harvard does it in their Blue Book: for example, you would cite the paper of record, the NY Times, first, then the "other" papers of record, in order, the Washington Post, L.A. Times, Wall Street Journal, then any other papers from major cities, then mid-size, etc. Same order for legal cites: constitutions, statutes, then court cases in that order.
  • "The Texans were prohibited from selecting a player from a team and trading the player back to that club." At first it's a team, then it's a club. Be consistent.

 Done Fixed.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In order to become competitive with existing teams,"

 Done Fixed.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I had called the specific references "Notes," modeled after the FL 2001 NFL Draft page, but I changed it like the Lakers page instead.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The 2002 National Football League Expansion Draft was the start of the Houston Texans new National Football League (NFL) team." Now that you've put the subject at the beginning, the sentence is not grammatically correct. For starters, "Texans" should have an apostrophe after it. How was the draft "the start" of the team? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals.

 Done Changed, but please note that the all caps came from the original source. --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but in this case MOS wants them not in all capitals even when the original source has all capitals. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/2002_NFL_Expansion_Draft/archive1&oldid=1126596008"