Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks

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 User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [1].

List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks[edit]

First FLC (00:57, 28 December 2007)
Second FLC (17:54, 16 January 2008)
previous FLC (19:39, 5 February 2008)

I am nominating this list after making necessary changes. Most of the credit goes to Buc. I made the table sortable and I believe this has become a useful page. Any comments/concerns are going to be addressed.--Crzy cheetah 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1)Why is there no bolding in the lead (to justify the name of the article)?

2)Is a key really necessary? I don't think it would hurt to write out all the positions.

3)There are many picks that need to be sourced. Until those are sourced, will this list have a chance.

Regards, --~S R S~ 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- 1) Per WP:LEAD, If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface. 2) I think a key is necessary, but if more people agree with you, I'll change; right now this is just a personal preference. 3) There is a general reference [2] that is used as a source for all picks. Thanks for the comments!--Crzy cheetah 23:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also forgot to mention, there's a discussion at WT:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence about repeating the title in the first sentence.--Crzy cheetah 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply

1)I forgot about that, Im sorry.

2)Okay.

3)In the Notes section you put individual references for many picks, but you left many unsourced.--~S R S~ 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Oh, the "Notes" column is for the picks that were either received from or traded to other teams. The picks that don't have any notes are the Saints' own picks.--Crzy cheetah 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to just write out the note, IMO. However, you need to put under the table, that your main source is that NFL page you showed me.~S R S~ 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think writing out the notes in the table would mess up the table; instead I am going to separate the notes from the refs, as Gonzo fan2007 suggested below. This way it will be more obvious that these are the notes and not the sources. The site I showed you here is listed under general in the references section. --Crzy cheetah 05:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

Support Nice work, I can finally say I support this list as a FL. Thank you Crzycheetah. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments were really helpful and made this list much better than it was.--Crzy cheetah 04:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Link "expansion team " for non-experts.
"and first participated in the 1967 NFL Draft" perhaps "first participated in the NFL Draft that year."
"In the "NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting," which is more commonly known ..." remove "which is"...
"second worst " should that be hyphenated?
Why is always in italics?
"The Saints had been given two first-round picks" how?
Image caption is a sentence fragment so doesn't need a period.
"The Saints have selected first overall once, drafting George Rogers in 1981,[5] second overall twice, Archie Manning in 1971 and Reggie Bush in 2006,[6] and third overall once, Wes Chandler in 1978.[3]" drafting needs to be reused here for Archie and Wes...
Table sorting is all over the place.
- Clicking on Pick four times gives me four different sort orders. Surely it should either be only ascending or descending order?
- Names don't sort correctly (i.e. by surname) - use the {{sortname}} template for this.
- Notes don't need to be sortable.

So for me it's oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I think I addressed your concerns. Could you take a second look?--Crzy cheetah 22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please read [[WT::FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence]] regarding the first sentence being an exact copy of the title
A reference is needed for the second sentence of the Lead
Does the first reference verify everything stated in the remainder of the paragraph?
Use an mdash (—) rather than a hyphen for "empty" entries in the table, per WP:DASH/WP:HYPHEN
Why is "no pick" in bold and itallic?
For some reason the references in the table don't take me anywhere when clicked, although the notes themselves do.

A few concerns to be addressed before I support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments!

With all due respect, the first sentence is not an exact copy of the title.

Not an exact copy, but it says the same thing in a different word order. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's there to tell readers what this page is about, so that they know that they are reading the correct page. --Crzy cheetah 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference is added to the second sentence.
Yes, the first reference does verify.
"—" are used now.
To catch attention of the reader.

Does this give it undue weight, then? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, bolded parts are removed. I left the italics part because "no picks" is not a player's name, so it should be presented differently.--Crzy cheetah 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references in the table, only notes.

I'm referring to the alphabetised ref notes, but I've realised it's a problem with Firefox. IE works okay. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate those "browser" problems, even though I just checked this page on Firefox and it works fine.

Hope to read your comments soon! --Crzy cheetah 09:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Good work. Noble Story (talk) 11:21, 29 May 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.