Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Green Bay Packers draft history/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Green Bay Packers draft history[edit]

Green Bay Packers draft history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reworked this list and split out the individual selections to Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) and Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) due to page size and accessibility issues. The goal of this list is to provide a high-level summary of each Packers draft. Happy to address any issues or concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude, Hey man im josh, and ZooBlazer:, just a litlle update, I added linking to the table to the individual draft selections for each year. So a reader can then click on that link and see who exactly was selected. I assume this is a net-benefit, but just wanted to give you all the chance to take a look. See here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "became the Packers first draft selection" => "became the Packers' first draft selection"
  • No need to link American football twice in the lead
  • "the Canadian Football League [CFL] was also included" - use normal brackets not square brackets
    • Is there a style guide related to this on Wikipedia? Most style guides recommend avoiding nested parentheses and state to use brackets on the inside of parentheses. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The number of rounds peaked to 30" => "The number of rounds peaked at 30"
  • "over a 7 year period" => "over a 7-year period"
  • "selected All-Pro Dan Currie and Pro Football Hall of Famers " => "selected future All-Pro Dan Currie and future Pro Football Hall of Famers " (current wording could be taken to imply that they were already in the HoF when drafted)
  • "in 1957 with the aforementioned Hornung" - I think just "in 1957 with Hornung" is fine
  • Because the table is sortable, you need to link to List of second overall National Football League draft picks both time the Packers drafted second, not just the first time
  • "The Packers have only had the first selection in a draft twice, in 1957 with the aforementioned Hornung" - this contradicts the table, where it says they drafted 5th in that year
    • Their normal draft order that year was 4th, however as the recipient of the last "bonus lottery pick", they got a bonus 1st round pick. This is mentioned in the lead. Let me know if you think it warrants a note in the table itself (note, fifth was a typo, they were 4th). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the CFL in square brackets still looks odd to me but I guess it's no big deal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh

Source review criteria and status: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Source review notes:

  • I noticed Encyclopedia Britannica is Wikilinked, as are a number of other publishers. Could you Wikilink the first instance mentions for websites to keep it consistent?
  • Ref 18, 19, and 28 – All use the same publisher as the source but each one uses a different variation, one with an underscore, one with a hyphen, and one with just spaces. Please make them consistent and unlink the latter two to be consistent with your wikilinking.
  • Ref 23 – No publisher listed
  • Ref 7 – Seattle Times is subscription based, needs url-access parameter
  • Ref 7 – Add publish date

Other comments:

  • Infobox has a link to "List of first round draft picks" but the target is List of...first-round draft picks"
  • Earl Girard redirects to Jug Girard. Perhaps you should list this name there instead?
  • Vito Parilli redirects to Babe Parilli. Same comment as above.
  • Your date formatting is good and consistent, but could you add {{Use mdy dates|date=February 2024}} under the short description? That way if anybody adds sources later on it should still end up properly displaying whatever date formats they use in refs.

That's what I've got. I found this formatting to be interesting for draft history and preferably over a whole list of picks at that article title instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed all your comments except the first. This may be personal preference, but generally when I use {{Cite web}}, I use the website field and write out the literal website without linking. However, if I use {{Cite magazine}} or {{Cite encyclopedia}}, the link is ancillary (imho), as the work itself isn't necessarily digital. So typically in that case I would write out the work itself and link it (i.e. Sports Illustrated), because there is some relevance. {{Cite web}} says the work or website field is Name of the work containing the source; may be wikilinked if relevant. All this to say I think there is some wiggle room to leave the encyclopedia linked while not wikilinking anything that ends in ".com" or similar. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: I respect that it's personal preference and we that we more or less focus on aiming for consistency in the formatting, but I didn't realize the logic you were using was based on the type of cite. Just for my own clarity so I know how to properly evaluate your lists moving forward, you're wikilinking in every ref that this applies to, or just the first occurrence in the type of references this applies to? I imagine some of these sources do strictly post some of their content online, but I get what you're getting at. Regarding Sports Illustrated specifically, any thoughts on the fact citation expander, in my experience, has always changed references I've used that use Sports Illustrated to cite magazine instead of cite web? Lastly, maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel be Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh, re Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, my bad. I always confuse Green Bay Press-Gazette and MJS on which has the dash. My general process (and I am sure I'm not 100% on this) is that if I am using {{Cite web}} to cite an exclusively online source, I typically don't link to the article (so ESPN.com and not ESPN). For other sources which were primarily offline, like magazines, newspapers, or encyclopedias, I will link every occurence in each citation (so Green Bay Press-Gazette for each citation). Does that make sense? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the one use of SI.com, I fixed that to {{Cite magazine}} and linked the magazine field. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I understand better now about your process and stylistic choices so it should be more to the point in any future lists you nominate. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ZooBlazer

The article looks pretty good overall already, so my comments are probably mostly nitpicks.

  • The Packers have only had the first selection in a draft twice - You can remove "only"
  • and Tony Mandarich in 1989. The selection of Mandarich has been much maligned over the years. Of the first five picks of the 1989 NFL draft - Mostly just curious if there's a reason throughout the article why you technically link the second instance of a draft year instead of the initial one? I think in the context, readers would understand the link is for the draft, and not 1989 for instance. Not a big deal if that's just what you prefer or if that's how it is handled in NFL articles in general or something, but I figured I'd at least mention it.
    • My mo is that if I am just generally statin something happened in a year, I don't use a piped link, especially if later in the same sentence I actually state out the full name of the draft. That way the reader is clear on the link and there is no easter egg/surprise involved. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • selected over a 7-year period - Aren't single digit numbers usually spelled out?
    • Per MOS:NUMBERS, Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently. Since 10 comes a few worts earlier, 7 stays as a number. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • over 7 rounds - Ditto
  • I bring the last two points up because in other parts of the article, you do write out the numbers such as with picks three, four and five

That's all from me. Like I said, at this point these are mostly nitpicks. Great job on the article. -- ZooBlazer 17:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 15:01, 23 March 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Green_Bay_Packers_draft_history/archive1&oldid=1215251499"