Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Dabomb87 22:44, 17 November 2009 [1].

List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft[edit]

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I have created this list based on the current FL List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft. I used several sources for the NFL Draft listing data including Pro-Football-Reference.com and the official University of Oklahoma website. However, I made considerable effort to find original sources for Pro Bowl and NFL Championship listings. I believe this list meets all the criteria for a featured list.—NMajdan•talk 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5
Comments from KV5

Just a few quick things:

  • Don't separate symbols from their indicators (no spaces). If an indicator is at cap height, like daggers, they should be superscripted to avoid messiness. Asterisks need not be superscripted.
  • The table of contents where a lead image would normally be seems awkward. Consider moving one of the many fine images to the lead and using a standard TOC.
  • Per the documentation for the {{reflist}} template, using the 3-column parameter should be avoided.
  • "two overall number one picks" - I'm sure there's a list of first overall picks somewhere to link to.
  • Blank cells should use em-dashes, not en-dashes.
  • "NFL-AFL merger" should use an en-dash instead of a hyphen (both instances).
  • "April 22-24, 2010" - en-dash
  • I think I am OK with no sortability in this list, as I like the format, but I will let others comment.
  • Navbox doesn't directly link to this article.
  • In the key: I believe "Won an NFL champion" should be Won an NFL championship, both times
  • Dabs: Back (sports)
  • Alt text exists; I will let other reviewers comment on the quality.
  • The general references are all working, but none of the specific refs are showing up in the deadlink checker, so no comment for now.

Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed spaces around the indicators (asterisks, daggers, double daggers). Just to clarify before I make the change, are you saying that all daggers and double daggers should be superscripted? Moved TOC to left and moved a picture of a more recent draftee to the lead. Reflist is now 2 columns. Added wikilinks. Em dash and en dash changes have been made. Removed navbox (getting to the point now where I need a specific athletics navbox for the University). Changed championship wording. Regarding the disambiguation, in the early days of football, "back" was the term that was used to identify a position. In modern times, we now have several types of backs: full, half, running, quarter, etc. I left that pointing to the disambig because I didn't know of a better place to point to. Thanks for the comments.—NMajdan•talk 19:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am suggesting that daggers and double-daggers should be superscripted. Can be done with a find/replace. I do see your point with the "back" link; there really is no better place to point that. I had the same issue with List of Baltimore Orioles managers (where to point "St. Louis Browns"), so I can live with one as long as there's a rationale behind it per WP:IAR. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have superscripted all daggers. You will also notice I readded the navbox after reformatting it to include this article.—NMajdan•talk 19:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The University of Oklahoma Sooners football team have drafted 343 players into the National Football League (NFL)..." - the college team didn't draft anybody; the pro teams do the drafted. Suggest reword to The University of Oklahoma Sooners football team has had drafted 343 players into the National Football League (NFL)... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed that sentence. You're right, it didn't make sense before. Guess I was guilty of copying verbatim from the FL I was modeling this after.—NMajdan•talk 19:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Each NFL franchise seeks to add new players through the annual NFL Draft. The team with the worst record the previous year pickedpicks first, the next-worst team second, and so on. The exception to this record-based order is that the winner of the previous Super Bowl pickedpicks last and the loser pickedpicks second-to-last. Teams may also negotiate with one another both before and during the draft for the right to pick an additional player in a given round." - there are two tenses here. All should be present tense (changes where I have marked above).

Done.—NMajdan•talk 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my comment above.—NMajdan•talk 11:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • The two non-free images don't have a strong enough fair-use rationale, and I doubt that they could ever be made strong enough since they are only being used for illustration. My suggestion is to remove both of them.
  • Did any of the pre-merger draftees win an AFL title? There are none that jump out to me at a glance, but I'm not an expert on 1960s pro football rosters. Worth checking with the nominator in my mind.
    • No, I don't believe so. It would have been indicated in the football-reference site I use extensively.—NMajdan•talk
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • References at the end of the second paragraph are out of order. Not a big deal, but it wouldn't take long to adjust this. Same applies for the end of the third paragraph.
  • Can the start of the third paragraph be recast so the AFL initial isn't given before the full use?
  • References 100 and 102 need a publisher.
  • References 17 and 98 should have the publisher in italics because they are printed publications.
  • References 120 and 128 should have all caps removed. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have completed some tasks. I believe both other sources are reliable and I will address them if I am unable to find a suitable replacement, which so far is the case. You guys are killing me with the sortability. How should I address the reference column if I make this list sortable?—NMajdan•talk 15:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd have to duplicate the reference for each draftee from that particular year. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about making a third header in the References (along with Generic and Specific) for the yearly links to the pro-football-reference website?—NMajdan•talk 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That probably won't fly, but the information is all verified by the current general references, so you probably don't absolutely have to have the references in the table. You could also include this as additional support if you like. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have dropped the references column. Will work on the other changes to make this list sortable over the coming days.—NMajdan•talk 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why not make it sortable? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, no reason not to make this list sortable.—Chris!c/t 04:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...look up.—NMajdan•talk 01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry about that. I'm pressed for time, and was just quickly glancing at each FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is now sortable with the exception of the Player name column. That will be sortable as soon as I add {{sortname}} to the 300+ names.—NMajdan•talk 15:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Player name column now sortable.—NMajdan•talk 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the notes are not referenced—Chris!c/t 00:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notes are just specifying more detail than what is in the table and thus covered why the same references that the table has which are the general references.—NMajdan•talk 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment before I support: should the 2010 Draft, which won't occur until next April, be included this soon? Most sports FLs I've seen don't include future events, at least not while they are at FLC. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I'll remove it. I liked it better when the list was unsortable. I don't like it as much now.—NMajdan•talk 00:30, 10 November 2009 (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/List_of_Oklahoma_Sooners_in_the_NFL_Draft/archive1&oldid=1207833488"