Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Houston Texans first-round draft picks/archive2

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, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Houston Texans first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): --Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list was previously nominated for FLC in 2008, but was declined for being too short.(And rightfully so.) I believe the article is now ready to be recognized as a Featured List, as it has all the necessary info, and similar articles for other teams are Featured like the Ravens, Rams and many more.. I look forward to the comments to know the reviews.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Drive-by comment: While older FLs may use references placed at the end to source the list, the current standard is that citations should be placed in the body of the article. If a source is used for the entire list, it can be placed in the table caption or in a column heading instead of in each row. Also, the sources in the References section need to be updated; if the access dates are from 2007 and 2008, how can they be used as sources for the entire table through 2021? RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With my drive-by comment resolved, here's a more thorough review.

Image needs alt text
"Houston Texans" should not be bolded in lead
"2002 NFL draft" → "2002 NFL Draft"
Footnotes explaining draft pick trades need to be sourced
Footnotes c–f and g–h use two different styles to explain draft trades – pick one and stick with it
References column should be unsortable
Rename "Special References" section to "External links"
- Also, website name should be "Houston Texans", not "Houston Texas"

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead should probably specify that the Texans are an American football team. I know it says "joined the National Football League", but given how many different sports are called "football" by someone in the world, it would be best to be completely clear
Paid is spelt incorrectly (unless "payed" is valid in American English?)
Quarterback is wikilinked in the lead but offensive tackle not - any reason?
Italics on always seem unnecessary to me
"No player selected by the Texans has been enshrined in the Pro Football Hall Of Fame"- no player selected in the first round specifically, or no player ever selected?
Row 2 of the key refers to the Ravens, presumably this is a copy/paste error.....?
Sentence fragments like "Youngest player ever taken in modern draft era." should not have full stops. This applies to pretty much everything in the Notes column.
As above, every row needs a specific reference. These would probably work best in a separate column.
The key suggests that a dagger will appear against Pro Bowl players, but it doesn't
Footnotes (eg "The franchise was established in 1999, but played its first season in 2002.") should be separated from actual references
Footnotes which are not complete sentences should also not have full stops (think this only applies to one note)
Ref 11 shows no accessdate
That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@ChrisTheDude: All the problems have been solved now. you may please have a look.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The fourth and fifth comments above have not been addressed. Also, you have removed the full stops from all footnotes, including the ones which are complete sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, you have addressed the ninth by removing the dagger from the key. Apologies for being unclear, but what you should have done is left the dagger in the key and added it to the relevant players. For accessibility reasons, colour alone cannot be used as an identifier -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I have added the daggers and have got the hof problem solved. I didn't spot any italics this time. I removed some seeing your first comment. Please inform me where they are. Also - I rechecked all the footnotes and found that all of them are free of full-stops. I hope we are allowed to keep other punctuations like comma's to give the sentence meaning. If I am wrong please inform me.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: the footnotes, my comment was "Footnotes which are not complete sentences should also not have full stops". I never said to remove them from all notes. Notes a, c, d, e and f are complete sentences and therefore need full stops. Re: italics, my comment was "Italics on always seem unnecessary to me". I accept this is maybe ambiguous, so apologies. What I meant is that the word "always" is italicised twice in the lead and (IMO) there is no reason for this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Problem solved I guess.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

Note [a] is unreferenced.
"cost of $700 million " inflate to 2020 $
Isn't there a link for 2002 NFL draft?
"team's most recent" put a year in there in case this doesn't get updated for a year or more...
"with the worst record picking first" the record doesn't make the pick, the team with the worst record does...
"the Super Bowl champion always picks 32nd, and the Super Bowl loser always picks " you don't need to repeat Super Bowl in either case here.
Ref col doesn't need to be sortable.
Row scope can be applied to the player name each time.
For the 7x, 2x etc, are you using an x or a ×, the latter should be what's being used.
The footnotes need references.
NO SHOUTING in ref titles please.
New York Times requires a subscription.
Ref 7 doesn't need the publisher in the ref title.
WaPo refs needs subs too.
Why only WaPo linked in the refs, not NYT, Bleacher Report etc?
What are "Special References"? do you mean "External links"?
Put a bullet point in front of that "Special Reference".

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I have solved most of the problems. I didn't get the row scope and the 7x, 2x thing. It would be nice if you could explain it once more. I have added citations to the footnotes. But the draft trade footnotes don't have refs. They are not even present in the draft-page. I also hope that the NYT and WaPo additions aren't a huge problem. I only used them as they are considered reliable. Wish you the best.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So for the 7x (7 times) are you using the x character (ecks) or the × symbol (multiplication symbol)? It should be the latter. Row scopes, read MOS:DTT to see how to add code into the table for compliance with MOS:ACCESS. Reliable sources such as WaPo are fine but use the url-access=subscription parameter if they need people to pay for them. And the footnotes need referencing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've solved all the other problems except the 'col method'. I couldn't get a hang of it and program started showing errors. And the links are no longer working. I'm kind of stuck. You can view my edits in the history to tell me where I was wrong.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look later and try to fix the issues I've raised! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the row scopes. It's made the colour go away which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you so much.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

All the citations in the Ref column need to be center aligned. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atlantis77177 – Any updates here? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: I apologize for delay as I had personal matters to attend to in the stretch. I would also would like you to help me out here, as I am kind of a new editor, so what you meant wasn't exactly clear. Could you help me by fixing the problem yourself when you are free, as in that way we could easily solve your issue with the article.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no issues at-all. I'll do it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; now done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: @Kavyansh.Singh: @The Rambling Man: Sorry for disturbing. But it's been a while now since I posted this request, and with almost all problems solved, I wished to know how the process would continue. Regards. --Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, this nomination just... never got anyone to fully review it. I'm going to go ahead and promote it now - source review passed; promoting. --Pres N 00:14, 8 April 2022 (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.