Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Cleveland Browns 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 kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks edit
List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Omg its will run, EurekaLott, TdanTce, Jayron32, Crzycheetah, WP Lists, WP Cleveland, WP USA, WP National Football League
A 2007 candidate that is almost wholly unsourced - most of the inline citations are actually unsupported notes. This is particularly concerning as part of this list falls under WP:BLP as many of these draft picks are still living. This would not pass WP:FLC in its current state and needs significant work. Hog Farm Talk 17:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not unsourced. There is a considerable list of references at the end of the article. Can you please itemize which of the things listed at WP:WIAFL this fails, it would be helpful so that someone can fix it up. The "wholly unsourced" is blatantly not true, the entire list is verifiable by sources already listed in the article in the references section. If you can identify a specific problem someone can fix with information that cannot be found, it can be fixed. This is an easily verifiable list, as there are lots of sources, in addition to the ones in the article. See, for example pro football reference, pro football hall of fame (requires a little more work, but still verifiable], etc. --Jayron32 18:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- (b) statements are sourced where they appear ... Hog Farm Talk 18:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You accidentally forgot the functional part of item (b). The part you forgot to quote states "they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (bold mine for emphasis). The statement contains a link for clarification to WP:MINREF, which notes the four required inline citation. Individually citing every draft pick to the same inline citation is WP:OVERCITEing. It is sufficient to have a general cite for the whole list. --Jayron32 18:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @WP:FLC director and delegates: - withdrawing this. I still think if this citation usage was sent through FLC today it would get lit up like a Christmas tree, but I'm not going to argue this. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine letting other voices comment on this. There's just the two of us commenting, feel free to wait for other voices. I invite them as well, and don't think we need to storm off just because I happened to ask for more details. You have concerns, I disagreed, lets let a few more voices ve heard here before we take our ball and go home in a huff. --Jayron32 19:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I did add the Pro Football Reference citation I noted above. It wasn't in the list yet, but it does allow the entire list to be verified. Is there anything else that isn't verifiable from that reference? Is there anything specific that needs fixing?--Jayron32 19:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- From a quick skim, it looks like it's all covered now. I think all of the sources are decent enough (about.com isn't always RS, but it looks like this author has written for the New York Times before, so it's fine). As it's really just a citation style disagreement, I think it's fine now. I'm more familiar with featured articles, where it is expected to painstakingly cite everything inline, but featured list is a bit of a different animal. Hog Farm Talk 19:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be inclined to include their picks from the three AAFC drafts as well, for completeness. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- From a quick skim, it looks like it's all covered now. I think all of the sources are decent enough (about.com isn't always RS, but it looks like this author has written for the New York Times before, so it's fine). As it's really just a citation style disagreement, I think it's fine now. I'm more familiar with featured articles, where it is expected to painstakingly cite everything inline, but featured list is a bit of a different animal. Hog Farm Talk 19:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I did add the Pro Football Reference citation I noted above. It wasn't in the list yet, but it does allow the entire list to be verified. Is there anything else that isn't verifiable from that reference? Is there anything specific that needs fixing?--Jayron32 19:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine letting other voices comment on this. There's just the two of us commenting, feel free to wait for other voices. I invite them as well, and don't think we need to storm off just because I happened to ask for more details. You have concerns, I disagreed, lets let a few more voices ve heard here before we take our ball and go home in a huff. --Jayron32 19:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @WP:FLC director and delegates: - withdrawing this. I still think if this citation usage was sent through FLC today it would get lit up like a Christmas tree, but I'm not going to argue this. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You accidentally forgot the functional part of item (b). The part you forgot to quote states "they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (bold mine for emphasis). The statement contains a link for clarification to WP:MINREF, which notes the four required inline citation. Individually citing every draft pick to the same inline citation is WP:OVERCITEing. It is sufficient to have a general cite for the whole list. --Jayron32 18:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has stalled out with no consensus to delist. It looks like the nominator is fine with dropping it, so I'm going to close this. I would prefer for the tables to have explicit cites, however, or that, at minimum, there should be a statement above the tables saying which general references were used rather than having the reader guess. I did add some accessibility fixes as well. --PresN 14:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been kept, 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.