Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Chargers 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, 4 August 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Los Angeles Chargers first-round draft picks

Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Chargers first-round draft picks/archive1

Nominator(s): Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I've gone through and hopefully added sufficient citations for the list, as well as notes on trades and basic stats.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

In general, the lead needs citations unless it is directly supported by the list itself
"the NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting" – remove quotes around phrase per MOS:BADEMPHASIS
Current players are only represented by a color; they need a corresponding symbol to meet accessibility requirements
Images need alt text
Notes column doesn't need to use small text

Overall, looks pretty good to me! RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've made the necessary changes, so happy to support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As mentioned above, vast chunks of the lead are unsourced
I think you need to state specifically that they are an American football team. I know the first sentence says "The Los Angeles Chargers are a National Football League (NFL) franchise", but that is not completely clear given how many other sports are known as "football" to different people (and there is even a league called the NFL in a different sport entirely)
"The AFL were formed" => "The AFL was formed"
"meaning that they had to compete directly with an NFL club" - with one specific NFL club?
"overall, the Chargers were unable to sign their 1st-round selection" - you use a digit here but the title writes it as a word?
"they traded the #1 pick to Atlanta before the draft for three draft picks and one player; the Falcons selected Michael Vick" - write the team name in full so that people know that Atlanta and the Falcons are one and the same
"Signed for the NFL's Pittsburgh Steelers." - this and similar notes are not complete sentences so should not have a full stop
"Pick received in trade with Broncos" - write team name in full and link it (with all similar notes)
That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude RunningTiger123 Thanks both, I've hopefully covered these points now. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pick received in trade with Washington" - appreciate that the nickname used by the team at that point in time might be a bit of a touchy subject these days, but it should still be used here, to be consistent with all the other notes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Fair enough; I've made the switch. Also, the pictures were giving me trouble, as they were showing up in one long vertical line above the table on non-widescreen monitors. I've cut it down to just Herbert and the three Hall of Famers. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

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. | align="center" | [[1960 American Football League Draft|1960]] becomes !scope=row align="center" | [[1960 American Football League Draft|1960]]. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup 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 01:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Now added for all main three tables. I wasn't sure whether the Table Key needed a header row or not.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

Not sure you need to link major geographical locations like Los Angeles.
If you do, don't overlink, San Diego is linked twice in the lead.
Our article on the draft says it's officially called "Player Selection Meeting" without "Annual" being part of the official name.
"an NFL club " can't we be specific?
"of the #1 overall" etc, per MOS:HASH don't use that symbol to mean "number".
You've got Pro Bowls in the table but zero mention of appearances in these in the lead.
Position needs a key as well.
"draft Hall of Fame tight end Kellen Winslow" I assume he was HoF when he was drafted, re-word.
"drafted #5 overall" hash thing again.
"selected #5 overall" ditto.
Where are all the footnotes referenced?
There's a mixture of "access-date" formats, make it consistent.
Several refs missing work/website/publisher e.g. 70, 113, 153 etc etc etc.

That's enough. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've gone through these now. With regard to the footnotes, their references are in the same row of the table. I wasn't entirely sure whether to put them inside the notes themselves, but felt keeping all the references in one column was more straightforward. Harper J. Cole (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

I read through the lede and made some minor edits. I also checked the lede to see if the unsourced information was sourced in the body, and I have no concerns.
Image check: pass, no concerns.
The footnotes might need citations to verify this information, although perhaps the information is verified by the ref used in the chart? I know in FAs the notes usually need to be cited even if they are using the citation in the article's body.
Why are Pro-Football-References and About.com listed in a general reference section? PFR is used as a reference, and About.com's reliability is questionable. I suggest removing this section.
If the general references section is kept: per MOS:NOTES, usually the full references (what the article has listed under "General") is placed after short citations. I suggest swapping these sections.
Source check: Version reviewed
- Ref 4: Sports Illustrated should be wikilinked.
- Ref 5: I think nfl.com can be wikilinked to the National Football League
- Ref 8: Needs an access date and a source date
- Ref 12: Wikilink to Pro-Football-Reference.com
- Ref 154: Should say Los Angeles Times, not latimes.com (for consistency)
Spot check: Refs 2, 7, 18, 63, 64,
- Ref 1: Does not verify that the first season was in 1960, only that the name was chosen in 1959.
- Ref 5: Does not verify that the formal name of the draft is the NFL Player Selection Meeting

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1270, I've gone through these now. The footnote information is all included in the chart, yes. I can add these if you think it's best, but felt that would be duplicating work. I've eliminated the General References section, which was there when I started on the article but doesn't seem to be doing much. The reference changes should all be made now. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns have been addressed. For the notes, I think it's OK the way it is. If someone has concerns, the references can be easily added from the article. I think Ref 6 needs a wikilink to CBS Sports, but this is minor and can be easily fixed. Z1720 (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --Pres N 14:25, 3 August 2022 (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.