Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Denver Broncos 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 12:08, 29 August 2009 [1].

List of Denver Broncos first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Crzy cheetah 02:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/List of Denver Broncos first-round draft picks/archive1

Recently I noticed it's been over a year since I nominated a list here, so I decided to contribute a little more. I have been working on this list the past 5-6 days and now I believe it's ready to be nominated. I welcome any comments/criticism/questions! Thank you! --Crzy cheetah 02:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Reviewing a list from the top for a change...

~~Is it precedent to separate first rounders from everything else?~~
- Well, there are 8-10 similar FLs already.--Crzy cheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images need alt text.
- Those are pdf icons, they're exception.--Crzy cheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not the images in the body of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't understand. There are alt texts for the two images in the body, does it not show for you?--Crzy cheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Teams are ranked in reverse order based on the previous season's record, with the worst record picking first, the second-worst picking second and so on." The noun + -ing grammatical construction is, well, ungrammatical. Suggest "Teams are ranked in reverse order based on the previous season's record; the worst record picks first, the second-worst picking second and so on."
- Ok, thanks for the example.--Crzy cheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~"most-recent" No hyphen.~~
- I remember in one of my previous nomination someone suggested hyphen...it's gone.--Crzy cheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you center the em dashes in the position and college columns? Use {{center}}.
- Well, those columns are left aligned and it would be awkward to have one cell centered in those columns.--Crzy cheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I think left-aligned em dashes look awkward, but to each his own. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~"No Pick" No reason to capitalize "Pick".~~
- You're right, Done!--Crzy cheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Year" isn't a very descriptive header. You might say "Draft" instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't "draft" redundant? Just wondering.--Crzy cheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, but the problem is that the column looks like a bunch of low-value plain year links. We need to specify that these easter-egg links go somewhere relevant. See List of Washington Wizards head coaches (in the "term" column). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll do it later for sure, that's a nice example.--Crzy cheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no link to this article from the Broncos navbox.
- Done!--Crzy cheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note r is missing a word: "overall pick in the 2009 Draft along with a third round pick" Needs a number before "overall".
Missing a lot of hyphens for compound adjectives in the notes (e.g. "first round pick"-->first-round pick)
- Done!--Crzy cheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No link to "Supplemental Draft"?
- Done!--Crzy cheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote g doesn't have a reference. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not done commenting because I am waiting for your comments on the notes section.--Crzy cheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't finished, I hadn't even checked the references! Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with all of it.--Crzy cheetah 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. I would still prefer to see all em dashes centered, but it's not enough to hold up an excellent list from FL status.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~About.com (ref 5) isn't considered a reliable source.~~
- Why? What's the reason?--Crzy cheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No reputation for fact checking; many of the "writers" are not actually experts in their field. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I'll change, thanks for explaining.--Crzy cheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Newspapers should be in italics. You can do this by changing "publisher" to "work" in the citation templates.~~
- Newspapers publish, maybe we need to contact the template editors and tell them to italicize the publishers?--Crzy cheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's just a quirk of the cite templates. That publications are italicized is a major style convention. See WP:ITALICS. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done! Except the two where newspapers publish AP's work.--Crzy cheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Use "p.", not "pp.", for single pages. You can do this by changing "pages" to "page" in the citation templates.~~
- Thanks, I was wondering how to do it. Done!--Crzy cheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
National Football League and Denver Broncos shouldn't be italicized. Change "work" to publisher for those refs. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the helpful comments and support! Can you please cap your comments about sources, as well?--Crzy cheetah 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like to keep source comments struck, not capped, so that the directors know the sources were checked by someone and so that anyone can add to them if necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5

I would also prefer to see the em-dashes centered.
- If you look at each row, it goes like this, "centered, centered, left-aligned, left-aligned, left-aligned". If all em-dashes are centered, then in those rows all cells will be centered; thus, breaking the trend.--Crzy cheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that; however, I share DB87's opinion that the centered em-dash looks like a clean blank cell. I think that the left-aligned em-dash looks awkward. I won't push it, though, since most if not all of the other NFL first-round FLs follow the same format. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why the footnotes are in two columns?
- For tidiness and easy reading.--Crzy cheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It actually makes it harder for me to read because it looks cramped, but maybe it's just me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I removed the 2nd column.--Crzy cheetah 02:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Denver Broncos, a professional American football team based in Denver, Colorado, are part of the National Football League's (NFL) American Football Conference West Division." - I don't like the way this reads, especially with the abbreviation in the middle of the sentence. Suggest two sentences: The Denver Broncos are a professional American football team based in Denver, Colorado. They are members of the American Football Conference West Division in the National Football League (NFL).
- Done, thanks for the suggestion.--Crzy cheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it unclear who they picked first? Are there two possible players? If so, they should be mentioned. Is there any kind of reason that can be further explicated?
- ~~In all sources about 12 players are listed in alphabetical order, so it's hard to find out who was picked first. I'll try to add a sentence or two explaining this further.~~--Crzy cheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The pick is found and added.--Crzy cheetah 06:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did they only participate in AFL drafts to 1965 if they didn't join the NLF until '67?
- ~~They participated in the 1966 AFL Draft in 1965, then in 1967, they participated in the 1967 NFL Draft. If you could word this better, I would really appreciate!~~--Crzy cheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With the help of the Giants' comments below, I think this issue is fixed.--Crzy cheetah 02:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure "The Falcons have selected..." in the third para of the lead was just an oversight.
- Yes, it was. Good catch!--Crzy cheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any first-round picks that have gone on to do something particularly notable (Hall of Fame, win Super Bowl, etc.)? Besides having it noted in the table, it would help to expand on that in the lead. I don't know why, but it looks short to me at the moment.
- I mentioned some stuff in the captions of the images. A fourth paragraph in the lead for this list is a little too much, IMO. I am going to start writing that paragraph anyway, though.--Crzy cheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it needs another paragraph, but some additions to the current paragraphs would be nice. Since this is a list about people, it makes sense to talk about some things they have done in the lead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I added two sentences at the end of the last paragraph. If it's not satisfying, can you hint what kind of info is needed, that is not too trivial yet short enough not to mess the lead?--Cheetah (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, they help, but I need more.--Crzy cheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"The Broncos participated in the AFL drafts until 1965 due to them joining the NFL as part of the AFL–NFL merger in 1967." I thought 1966 was the year of the merger, and the unified draft began the next year.
"They first participated in the 1967 NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting, more commonly known as the NFL Draft." I think this would be clearer with the year at the end: "They first participated in the NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting, more commonly known as the NFL Draft, in 1967."
"Robert Ayers, defensive end from University of Tennessee." "the" before "University".
Look a a typo in note h.
Reference 26 mentions some team named the "oncos". Giants2008 (17–14) 15:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all, thanks!--Crzy cheetah 02:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Nice to see a draft picks list at FLC; there haven't been many during my time as a reviewer. Looks like a nice one. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

"They first participated in the..." They should be The Broncos, as it is starting a new paragraph.
- Done!--Cheetah (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Broncos participated in the AFL drafts until 1965..." Don't you mean 1966?
- No, they participated on November 27, 1965.--Cheetah (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to avoid confusion, it would be better saying "1966 AFL Draft" then "1965", IMO. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"from the University of Nebraska and University of Tennessee" --> "from the University of Nebraska and the University of Tennessee"
- "The" is not necessary.--Cheetah (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the third paragraph, you should note that all the picks were from the first-round, just to avoid confusion that they were picked from other rounds.
- The whole list is about first-round picks, why would there be a confusion?--Cheetah (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's just that when you read this sentence: "The Broncos have selected players from the University of Nebraska and University of Tennessee three times each, the most from any university.", just like that, it sounds like you are talking about all the rounds, instead just the first. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Each year is linked to an article about that particular NFL Draft." The table also lists AFL Drafts.
- Done!--Cheetah (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK now?--Cheetah (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everything looks good to me, though I agree with KV5 that more about the players can be added onto the lead. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:24, 25 August 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.