Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NFL Draft/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 The Rambling Man 08:30, 7 February 2013 [1].

List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NFL Draft edit

List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NFL Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have done all that I have seen in the other "(School name) in the NFL Draft" pages, but with the North Carolina data. I've referenced all of the awards and super bowls, along with most of the points of contention I believe. Go Heels! Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments by Ravendrop
*A Few Random Comments:
  • In the positions column, what is BB (Tom Burnette), OG (Ken Huff), OT (Harris Barton). You do not include these in the table of contents.
  • Potentially could link B - Back in the Table of contents to Glossary of American football#B as it seems to be explaining what you are explaining in the note.
I found that BB was the earlier use for the term Quarterback. The latter two positions have been fixed in accordance with the table. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My though here is that it might be better to simply list Tom Burnette as QB. My opinion for why is that the person himself doesn't have an article and that the history of the position is much better explained on the Quarterback page than a draft page. This would also tidy the table of contents aesthetically. It is, however, only my opinion and I think with either option the list is FL worthy. Ravendrop 02:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused as to why in the table of contents "NFL Championship" links to List of NFL champions (1920-1969), but the colour/mark when used in the table is used for Super Bowls. If none of the draftees won a pre-Superbowl NFL championship, I'd suggest, for consistency, using Super Bowl in the table of contents as it is, in my opinion, the more widely used phrase.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead in the third paragraph I would put in a sentence that explains that teams from both the AFL and NFL would sometimes draft the same player in their separate drafts. This would help to make the notes explicit as well as the fact that the players are included in both tables.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems a little short to me (especially for Tar Heels related material being only 1 of the 3 paragraphs). I think it would be useful to add the numbers of draftees that have won Super Bowls or played in Pro Bowls. I know this is evident from the table, but the lead is a sum, so I don't think it is redundant. Additionally, are there any major records (or significant, notable team records) held by any of the Tar Heels draftees. If so, these could be added to the lead as well.
I added another paragraph per the request, the phrasing is the only thing that I think needs tweaking about it now. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specific Reference #3 (NFL History by Decade:1961-70) goes here, which appears to be a main navigational page.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice on pro-football-reference some of the players are listed as having multiple positions, but you list just one in the table. When clicking on some players at football database it seems to list multiple positions too. Any reason that I'm missing why?
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (slightly off topic) Why doesn't Brian Bollinger have a wiki article when he has won a Super Bowl. I would have thought that this would have been more than enough to pass notability. Ravendrop 07:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is a little strange I'd say. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose many comments despite the above early friendly supports, this is just a quick sample of comments in a five minute review...
  • " representing University of" why not representing the University?
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would suggest somewhere in the lead clarifying this is American football, not just football (which means something very different to most of the rest of the world).
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third & fourth para come along a little late to explain the purpose and rules of the draft after you've discussed the draftees...
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the most" no need for "with".
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Every current franchise" -> "Every current NFL franchise"
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most players selected in the first round of a single NFL Draft is three" awkward English, reverse perhaps, "The single round of the NFL draft with most Tar Heels selected was ... with three..."?
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and four have achieved both of those successes." -> "of these successes" is redundant.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most players from the North Carolina selected in a single NFL draft is nine, which occurred in the 2011.[7]" yuck, something like "The highest number of Tar Heels selected in a single NFL, in 2011, is nine."
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Super Bowl Champion" or "Super Bowl champion"?
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a "cite error" warning at the bottom of the page.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean? They have color like all the other feature lists, if that is what you're getting at with this. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try MOS:DTT. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I believe. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 02:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See no reason for two tables, merge and add another parameter, or another key for those few AFL folks.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are all notes referenced?
The last general reference at the bottom that links to the pro-football drafted player list should cover the notes. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link franchise the first time.
This I think is completely unnecessary I see every team linked on all the other pages I've looked at. Its much more convenient for this type of page to have each team linked each time they draft a player.
Sorry, I said link the "franchise" term the first time round. Not the second time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 00:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Looks like an extra space snuck in between "205" and "American football players...".
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues would hold a multiple round "Common Draft"." Seems like "would hold" would be better as "held"; that gets rid of some annoying passive voice in the writing.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the third paragraph contains information repeated from the first paragraph. I think the lead would be stronger without it.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The single first round of the NFL draft with most Tar Heels selected was 1998 with three". Needs "the" before "most".
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thirteen have been selected to selected to a Pro Bowl". Two words need removal.
Which ones? .... Kidding, fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The highest number of Tar Heels selected in a single NFL, in 2011, is nine." A bit messy here. Try "The most Tar Heels selected in a single NFL draft is nine, in 2001."
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text in lead photo: "hold" should be "holding".
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Key: "Won a Super Bowl champion". "champion" → "championship".
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captitalization of NFL Draft is inconsistent in the lead and captions. I actually think it should be capitalized as the title of the event.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still see one instance where "draft" is not capitalized when it should be, in the last sentence of the lead. The rest appear to be fixed, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that databaseFootball is a reliable source, nor do I think you need it. You'll still have four other sources to back the list, which is more than enough.
Can I still keep it though? Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a reliable source, then we shouldn't keep it. That's the point I'm trying to make. As long as the content is supported by the other general references, why bother keeping a source that may not be reliable in there? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all the Pro-football citations. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:53, 20 December 2012
No, that's not I meant. I don't doubt the reliability of Pro Football Reference; the Database Football reference was the one I was questioning. You need to reinsert all of the Pro Football Reference pages and remove the Database Football one, unless its reliability can be established. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixedamundo. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 00:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Comments
  • The table does not meet MOS:DTT, you need to add row and col scopes
  • Bold links should be avoided as they present undue emphasis

NapHit (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going to address both points here. Well if I remove the bolding the color pattern messes up so I can't undo that. Also is it really necessary that I go through and change everything on the table for col scopes and row scopes when every other featured article table i look at doesn't have that... Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how if you remove the bold links from the year column it messes up the colour. Also I'm not sure what you mean by colour pattern but its irrelevant. Bold links should be avoided as they give undue emphasis to column that has them. The row and col scopes have to be included. It doesn't matter if other lists don't have them, they need to be included. This is for users who read wii via a screen reader as without them they can't view the table properly. Both items need to be addresses. NapHit (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right well I did the scopes and unbolding. But now if you look at the table the colors, if the person was the first drafted that year, is in the year drafted box, you see what I mean about the color problem? Any clue on how to fix this, would putting the color in each box individually suffice? But there should be something simpler than that... Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I've noticed is that if I bold the draft years by adding the "!" instead of the "


  • Images look okay (no action required)
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
*Suggest linking players' names in the image captions.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the list is not sortable, is repeating the links to the individual pro teams necessary?
Absolutely. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The linking is necessary. Say a person who is looking at one player and wants to read up on the team that drafted him finds that the article is not linked. But if there was a link there, like there is now, its much more convenient and less of a nuisance to type in or search for the first link on the page. Honestly its fine with the links, its much more convenient this way. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 05:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a third opinion on this one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been over two weeks and nothing new... Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a link for wild card?
Fixed. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check your references. I don't like seeing this:
  • Neutral until a third opinion is given about names. Also, I do not appreciate being called "kid". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion: Taken literally, WP:REPEATLINK presently allows each target to be linked only once from within a table. However, the main argument against linking everything possible is to not take away the readers' attention from less numerous but equally or even more relevant links. I'm not seeing that problem in this article. So in my opinion, the convenience provided by these additional links slightly outweighs the aesthetic displeasure their presence causes. An unorthodox solution would be to color all but the first links black without actually delinking the teams. Or you could simply make the table sortable. Goodraise 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well okay so keep the linking it is then? Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try here perhaps? Goodraise 05:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the list on prose and images. Still not wild about the linking, but the MOS doesn't proscribe any particular method for lists — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are all the players who have played in the NFL/AFL linked, or just the ones that currently have articles? Wizardman 18:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just the players that have articles are linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NGRIDIRON they are almost certainly notable if they played at least one game and thus could be linked — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to be linked and personally a ton of red links are annoying to see on the page, so I'm going to pass on linking those without pages that have played games.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 12:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd much prefer the links added but it's no big deal. By the way Eric Blount needs to be linked, since he's not. That's basically why I'm pushing for the links, since they'll be filled in one day. Wizardman 03:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment, actually, then I can finally support: Refs 3 and 4 are exactly the same: combine them. Wizardman 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doneski. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wizardman 22:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been successful, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_North_Carolina_Tar_Heels_in_the_NFL_Draft/archive1&oldid=1138483687"