Jump to content

User:Hey man im josh/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Hey man im josh
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hey man im josh (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 19 March 2025 (temp save/transclusion of my 42 FLC noms). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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) 00:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [1].

List of National Football League annual receptions leaders

Nominator(s): Newtothisedit (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The state of NFL lists on Wikipedia is very poor compared to fellow major American sports leagues such as the NBA, NHL and especially the MLB. This is the first list in a project of mine to raise the standard of NFL lists. The style and format of the list is modeled after the NFL featured lists List of National Football League rushing champions and List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders. I look forward to any input and suggestions that you may have! --Newtothisedit (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments
  • Link Johnson in photo caption
 Done Assuming you mean Michael Thomas as there is no Johnson with a photo.
Yes, brain fart on my part :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • In the table he is Michael Thomas, Jr. but not in the caption?
 Done Changed name in table to Michael Thomas as majority of websites, his wikipedia page and his jersey don't use Jr. Leaving Sr. in Steve Smith's table entry as his wiki page and jersey have Sr. on it.
  • "In addition to the overall National Football League (NFL) receiving champion, league record books recognize statistics from the American Football League (AFL), which operated from 1960 to 1969 before being absorbed into the NFL in 1970, Although league record books do not recognize stats from the All-America Football Conference, another league that merged with the NFL, these statistics are recognized by the Pro Football Hall of Fame." - source for all of this?
 Done Added sources
  • The "set record" bit should be in the same key as the rest
 Done
  • Players' names should sort based on surname, not forename as at present
 Done
  • "Tom Fears broke the single season receptions record in consecutive years in 1949 and 1950" - this caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
 Done
  • "Kellen Winslow became the first Tight end to lead the NFL in receptions in 1980." - no reason for capital T on Tight
 Done
  • Ref 7 says it was retrieved in 2015. Does it still source the whole table? If not, what sources the last few rows?
 Done Database updates every year, still sources entire table.
  • Date format in refs is not consistent. There are also refs with no publisher listed, and some with the same publisher shown in different ways.-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 Done References should now have standard date and publisher format.--Newtothisedit (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
One more point - it would be better not to use the asterisk to indicate two different things. As the symbol is there to help people who can't see the colours, it doesn't make much sense to use the same symbol to denote two different things -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
It's not specified in the key, but their meaning is different based on the column they're used in. Would a tilde as a replacement for one of the asterisk look weird? Or would that be good option? I'm asking because I'd like to standardize across some of these NFL lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that would work -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Blech, you made a good point but I don't like how the tilde looks. Any suggestions on alternative characters to use besides the caret and asterisk? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
† and ‡ are pretty common..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 Done, made changes to the symbols so asterisks are not used twice. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • There's just a few issues left with ref formatting. Pro-football-reference.com is shown in italics in some refs but not others, and refs 12-14 show no publisher at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
     Done, these have been fixed to match the other Pro-football-reference.com references. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

These apply to the 2 big tables mostly, not the key table

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
 Done--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
 Done--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | {{NFL year|1932}} becomes !scope=row | {{NFL year|1932}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 00:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
     Done, I believe the row and column scopes are now properly done up. Would you mind verifying it when you get a chance @PresN? First time adding those so I just wanted to be sure I did it properly. Also thank you for your example edit, it helped. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    Looks good! --PresN 19:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit

  • "a recorded stat in football games." should probably be statistic here as stat isn't really encyclopedic language.
  • Should be statistics in full going forward. Few more mentions of stat that need to be addressed
  • I'd move the reference for the table next to the table caption, instead of as a note above the table.
  • You need to add 'plainrowheaders' to 'wikitable sortable' to prevent the seasons from bolding per MOS:BOLD instructions to avoid bold links
  • As there's only one ref per column in the AFL table, should be Ref instead of Ref(s)

That's all from me. I also have a list that could with a review here if you've got the time :) NapHit (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Resolved all comments Newtothisedit (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

  • Alt text for images would be good
  • "has led the NFL" – he's not still playing, so remove "has"
  • "has changed on 16 occasions" – I'm counting 15 in the table
  • "in his 11 year NFL career" – unsourced, so add a source or cut it
  • "the first tight end to lead the NFL..." – citation needed
  • Source 10 does not cover the entire table; it's missing 2020 and everything before 1950. I would suggest adding source 9 as a reference for the entire table (i.e., list sources 9 and 10 next to each other at the top of the section).
    • Also, update source 10's access date to after the 2021 season.
  • Table header: "NFL Annual Receptions leaders by season" → "NFL annual receptions leaders by season"
  • Why does 2016 have its own source? If it's not needed, remove it.
  • One section title is "List of NFL annual receptions leaders" but the other is "AFL reception leaders"; I'd standardize the format for the section names.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Resolved all comments Newtothisedit (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Harper J. Cole

  • It seems like the AFL table should follow the same format as the NFL one for consistency.
  • The statement that Art Monk was the first player with 100 receptions needs clarification, as the AFL records were absorbed by the NFL, and Lionel Taylor did it there some years earlier.

Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Done Newtothisedit (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks - the new table looks good. With regard to the 100 reception stat, Lionel Taylor didn't accomplish it twice; it was him once and Charlie Hennigan once. Also, that stat is mentioned in the lead section as well as the Art Monk picture. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Fixed Newtothisedit (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Support - looking good. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment

Checked all the sources, look fine, no concerns with them although I can't check the source from a book . MasterMatt12(talk) 17:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Linked PDF of book with page number. Newtothisedit (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This nomination has been up for a really long time, so this is a review and a source review and a close. I didn't find any issues worth holding up the close for but instead just tweaked some source formatting myself, and the source review passes, so promoting. --PresN 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [2].

List of National Football League annual receiving touchdowns leaders

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The style and format of the list is modeled after the NFL featured lists of List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders and List of National Football League annual receptions leaders. This is my first FL nomination and I will be doing my best to quickly address any input and suggestions that are put forth. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Harper J. Cole
  • The fact stated below Gronkowski's picture looks wrong, as Vernon Davis is listed as a co-leader in 2009.
  • Perhaps there should be a symbol denoting when a tight end appears on the list? It looks like there's three in total.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 Done Good catch, thanks for that @Harper J. Cole. I've changed the text under his picture to read "Rob Gronkowski's 17 touchdown receptions in 2011 are the most among tight ends."
If we wanted to call attention to a player's position we might be better off including a column instead of a symbol, as we have several players from earlier seasons who were not wide receivers. Though this gets a bit more complicated given how players' positions were a bit more ill-defined in the early years. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, I decided not to add a column for player positions or a symbol denoting when a tight end appears on the list. If I did so, I'd have to denote each player's position. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
That's okay - support the article as it stands. Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Comments
  • "but any offensive player" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "offensive player" so people don't think it means players who are swearing or have a personal hygiene problem? ;-)
 Done – Offense (sports) exists, but I chose to wikilink to American football positions#Offense instead.
  • "Jerry Rice ranks second with six league-leading seasons" - already mentioned so just use surname
 Done
  • "The number of games played by a player the season" => "The number of games played by a player during the season"
 Done
  • "Rob Gronkowski's 17 touchdown receptions in 2011 are the most among tight ends." - source?
 Done – I've added a source, but I did so in the description under the player's photo.
  • " The NFL did not have a set number of games for teams to play until the 1935 season, instead setting a minimum." - source?
 Done – Source from Pro Football Hall of Fame added.
Thank you for the quick feedback @ChrisTheDude, I very much appreciate it. I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Comments

Comments by Drat8sub

  • Add a short description on the top.
  • Ref. 6 used more than 100 times, refs. 24, 70, 77 used 5-6 times. If any alternative reliable sources available for these refs. add to reduce the use of each of these refs.
Rest seems ok for me, well written prose, well structured and sourced with RS, article seems stable. Drat8sub (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the list @Drat8sub, I appreciate you taking the time to do so. I believe, based on WP:SDNONE, that this is a situation where the article title is sufficiently detailed enough that an additional short description would not be helpful. Additionally, List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders and List of National Football League annual receptions leaders, the two featured lists I based this one off of, also do not have short descriptions for the same reason.
Regarding the references:
  • Ref. 6 – This is a reference that is used to verify the leader for each year in the tables.
  • Ref. 24 – This reference is to Don Hutson's stats and is used 9 times because they appear in the table / lead the league 9 times. It is used to verify the number of games played that season.
  • Ref. 70 – This reference is to Jerry Rice's stats and is used 6 times because they appear in the table / lead the league 6 times. It is used to verify the number of games played that season.
  • Ref. 77 – This reference is to Randy Moss's stats and is used 5 times because they appear in the table / lead the league 5 times. It is used to verify the number of games played that season.
I'd add alternate references if these were being re-used a number of times in paragraphs, but in this situation I don't think it would be an improvement. It would be inconsistent to add a different reference halfway through the table just to avoid re-using a reference too many times. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review – The sources used are reliable enough across the board and the link-checker tool shows no issues. There are a few formatting items that could stand to be fixed, though:

  • The all caps in the title of reference 10 should be taken out.
  • Espn should probably be fully capitalized in ref 11, since that is customary usage.
  • The publisher formatting for the NFL.com links in refs 2 and 65 should be made consistent. Right now, one says National Football League and the other says NFL.com. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@Giants2008:
  • Reference 10 is no longer all caps – [3]
  • Good point, ESPN is now fully capitalized – [4]
  • References 2 and 65 are now consistent with one another – [5]
Thank you for taking the time to review my nomination and provide feedback, I very much appreciate it. Please let me know if you take a take second pass and find anything else. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [6].

List of National Football League annual passing touchdowns leaders

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) and ULPS (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The style and format for this article was based on a few other NFL record FLs such as List of National Football League annual receptions leaders and List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders. This is my first FL nomination so please bear with me, but I will do my best to address any concerns or suggestions that are brought up :) ULPS (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments
  • My only comment is that there's no explanation of what the AFL is/was, how it differs/differed from the NFL, and why its stats are included in an article the title of which only mentions the NFL...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
     Done Added a sentence to the lede explaining it. ULPS (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Jake

  • Support Very well written, good sources and the tables are easily readable with included keys, Nice Job!! Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 14:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 15:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done all I believe. Is it fine just to use the dmy template? ULPS (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it's alright to use that template. You could use User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to change the dates quickly. Support. If you have time could you have a quick look at my nomination Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Music Bank Chart winners (2019)/archive1. Thanks. -- EN-Jungwon 07:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 15:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  • 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.
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) 12:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [7].

List of National Football League annual passing yards leaders

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This is part of a series of NFL annual statistic leaders that I'm working on. The style and format of the list is modeled after my recent successful FL nomination of List of National Football League annual receiving touchdowns leaders. Please let me know if there is anything that can be improved upon and I will do my best to address any and all concerns that are brought up in a timely manner. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 16:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: Thank you very much for the feedback. I've gone through and resolved all of these issues. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
One more thing. Use a consistent date format; there is a mix of dmy and mdy in the article. -- EN-Jungwon 06:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@EN-Jungwon: I have now made the date format consistent across all references. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Support. You can use User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to fix the dates easily or just add the {{Use dmy dates}} template to the page. If you have time could you take a look at my FL nomination Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Music Bank Chart winners (2019)/archive1. -- EN-Jungwon 16:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll use that moving forward, it'll make my life a lot easier. I'm not experienced reviewing FL noms, but I'm going to put it on my list of tasks to give it a shot. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Comments
  • "Brees has also lead passed for 5,000 yards in a season five times" - "has also lead passed" doesn't sound right. Does it mean that he was the passing leader and had a total of 5000+ that many times? If so, I think the valid wording would be "Brees has also been the passing leader with a total of over 5,000 yards five times"
  • "in the same year season" - either year or season, using both words together isn't valid
  • "Johnny Unitas, who lead the league in passing four times" => "Johnny Unitas, who led the league in passing four times"
  • "He was the first player to pass for over 5,000 yards in a season and lead the league in passing five times." => "He was the first player to pass for over 5,000 yards in a season and led the league in passing five times."
  • That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
    has also lead passed" doesn't sound right. – It was meant to be "Brees has also passed for over 5,000 yards in a season five times", noting a specific milestone accomplishment (only 9 quarterbacks have ever passed for over 5,000 yards in a season and Brees has done it 5 times). I've made all of the changes and I feel silly for having missed these. Thank you for your feedback @ChrisTheDude. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Comments
  • You say The NFL did not begin keeping official records until the 1932 season. In addition to the overall National Football League (NFL) passing yards leaders... You first mention the National Football League (and its abbreviation) after you use already used the abbreviation.
  • With his victory in Super Bowl LVII in 2023, Patrick Mahomes became the first player to lead the league in passing yards and win a league championship in the same season since George Blanda did so in the 1961 AFL season. seems a little wordy, could you convey this in a better way? (this one is nitpicky)
  • That's all, the list is in good shape. ULPS (talk • contribs) 01:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
    • You first mention the National Football League (and its abbreviation) after you use already used the abbreviation. – I've moved the first mention of the abbreviation, thanks for that catch.
    • seems a little wordy, could you convey this in a better way? – It does feel a bit clunky. Perhaps just shortened to: In 2023, Patrick Mahomes became the first player to lead the league in passing yards and win a league championship in the same season since George Blanda did so in the 1961 AFL season? I played around with some variations and this is the one that felt the most right.
    Thank you for taking the time to review this list @ULPS. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good to me :) ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Comments
  • Having Joe Namath opposite the NFL table is a bit confusing, as the caption to his picture refers to something he did in the AFL. I'd suggest moving him alongside the AFL table, or at least specify in the caption that that's where he threw for 4k.
  • I'd also suggest swapping the order of the Brees and Marino pictures. Then everyone will be in chronological order (except Manning, who should remain top as the current record holder).
Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback @Harper J. Cole. I've changed the caption on Joe Namath to make it clear this was accomplished in the AFL instead of moving it to the AFL section. I like the progression of 3k to 4k to 5k and I think moving it to the AFL section might hurt the flow a bit. I did however move Brees' picture below Marino's, per your suggestion which I thought was a good point. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps swap Fouts and Namath then (again to preserve chronological order)? Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@Harper J. Cole: done. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Source review – Formatting of the references looks okay and the link-checker tool shows no issues. However, I do have questions on whether footballperspective.com (ref 9) is a reliable source, as I haven't heard about this one before. Are there no stronger sources available for that particular sentence. Also, it is somewhat odd to say that Mahomes did this in 2023 when the table lists 2022; I know this is due to the timing of the Super Bowl, but it has the potential for enough confusion that an explanatory note may be worthwhile. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review @Giants2008.
    • I changed the point about Mahomes in the lead to begin with After leading the league in 2022, ... -- do you think this is adequete?
    • Regarding ref 9 (footballperspective), there are quite a few sources out there that mention Mahomes being the first to lead the league in passing and win a Super Bowl. However, I was unable to find sources that also mention that Blanda won the AFL Championship in 1961. It felt disingenuous to state that Mahomes was the first player to lead the league in passing yards and win a Super Bowl when it would be leaving out the fact that there was NFL and AFL championships that came before the Super Bowl. I have added another source which doesn't mention Blanda in hopes that this strengthens the claim enough.
    Hey man im josh (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
      • If the footballperspective site isn't reliable, then I'm not convinced the sentence can stand as is, since as you said Blanda isn't mentioned in the newly added cite. Is there really nothing better that can be used? I know pre-Super Bowl history tends to be forgotten, but it would surprise me if nobody else mentioned this. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
        @Giants2008: So, technically this site verifying this fact is just a blog, but it's a blog by a sports writer with an extensive history. The contact tab on the site mentions some of the site's owner's history and this bio here mentions that he was a writer for Pro-Football-Reference.com, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and FiveThirtyEight.
        I've spent over an hour looking since this comment and I've been unable to find a mention of Mahomes and Blanda in the same article in this context. There's a ton of articles out there about how Mahomes was the first to win a Super Bowl and to lead the league in passing, but those articles are focused specifically on the Super Bowl era. I've added a reference about Blanda having led the league in passing and won the AFL championship in the same year, but despite the AFL's history being absorbed by the NFL, it's not mentioned very often. Unfortunately, the only thing I can come up with would be SYNTH or OR probably, since there were 4 football seasons between the 1961 AFL championship that Blanda won and the first Super Bowl which took place after the 1966 season.
        While I do believe the author is credible, and the fact can be verified with OR and SYNTH, I understand that this source cannot be taken at face value. I changed the sentence in question to remove the mention of Blanda and it now reads "Patrick Mahomes led the league in passing yards in 2022 and became the first player in the Super Bowl era to do so and win a league championship in the same season." Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Image review

Crazy that this has waited so long seemingly only because of an image review(?), but I'll try to do one.

  • Assuming good faith on the images claimed as public domain because of the publishing date between 1928 and 1977. The Namath image seems to be for sale on Etsy but I guess someone might be able to make listings with PD images and that isn't necessarily a comment on its copyright status.
  • For File:Dan Fouts 1982.jpg, the source site seems to very loosely indicate it was taken in 1982 but I am not seeing any proof that it was "published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice". Seems to show a 2017 submission date?

--NØ 20:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey @MaranoFan. There have been quite a few football card sets that are police issue, at least 176 according to this link from the American football database Fandom wiki, and they're typically printed before the seasons start. I found two news articles from newspapers.com (1 and 2), which I'm unable to clip due to my account name on the site which would provide identifying information about me, which feature card #8 (Louie Kelcher) from the 1982 San Diego Chargers Police set. While it's not definitive, I think it makes it very unlikely the image in question was not also published with the rest of the set in 1982. I was unable to find an article featuring Fouts' image unfortunately so if this isn't enough then I can look to replace the image. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Since we generally have a more relaxed attitude here at FLC, I am happy to pass this. Not seeing proof that any images weren't published in the year that is claimed. Best of luck!--NØ 16:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your review and support! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 02:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  • 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.
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) 00:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [8].

List of National Football League annual rushing touchdowns leaders

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

This is #7 in the series of NFL annual statistical leaders. The formatting is based on past successful featured lists from the series and, if successful, would mark the completion of rushing related stats. As always, I will do my best to respond and make changes as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments
  • This is my first time reviewing an FLC, so please bear with me :)
  • Is there a reason there is no table listing the players with the most seasons leading the league, similar to the one at List of National Football League annual rushing yards leaders#Most rushing titles or List of National Football League annual passing touchdowns leaders#Most seasons leading the league? If not, add it
  • In the first image caption, you say "LaDainian Tomlinson holds the single-season rushing touchdowns record, rushing for 28 touchdowns in 2006." The two instances of rushing so close together seems a little clunky, maybe change that second one to "running for 28 touchdowns".
  • These next two are more nitpicks and probably optional. The lede seems a little sparse, perhaps add something about the few players who achieved over 20 rushing touchdowns in one season?
  • Perhaps add a key to the AFL annual rushing touchdowns leaders section. While I would prefer it, I do get the rational behind not including one. ULPS (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for the feedback @ULPS.
    • Is there a reason there is no table listing the players with the most seasons leading the league... – Not really except that we haven't really standardized whether it should be included or not. You pointed to the two of the five NFL annual leader FLs that have such a table, while the other three FL do not. Never the less, after giving it some thought, I do think the table is useful so I've gone ahead and added it.
    • ...maybe change that second one to "running for 28 touchdowns". – Done
    • These next two are more nitpicks and probably optional. The lede seems a little sparse, perhaps add something about the few players who achieved over 20 rushing touchdowns in one season? – Added a mention that there has been eleven instances where a player has rushed for over 20 touchdowns in a season and that only two players have done so twice.
    • Perhaps add a key to the AFL annual rushing touchdowns leaders section. – I went back and forth on this one prior to the nomination. NFL lists are inconsistent when it comes to including the key in the AFL section, with the assumption apparently being that people will reference the key above the NFL table. After giving it some thought, we can't really go wrong by having the key relisted in the AFL section as well. I've included a key with the active player and HoF portion of the key removed, as those are not relevant to the AFL table (no active or HoF players in the table).
    I hope I've addressed your concerns. Please let me know if you think anything else can be improved. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - ULPS (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Query
  • The "most seasons leading the league" table doesn't include Cookie Gilchrist or Abner Haynes, so apparently it only includes the NFL players......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: That was a mistake on my part. When creating that "most seasons leading the league" I was looking at the NFL table and forgot to include the AFL table. I've now included both of those players in the table. Thank you for catching this, I feel silly having missed it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you! One of these days I'll stump you :) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
EN-Jungwon
  • Short description should be at the top. See MOS:ORDER
  • Priest Holmes is linked twice in the lead.
  • Is there a better |website= name for ref 8, 9 and 10

-- EN-Jungwon 10:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon:
  • Short description has been moved to the top
  • Priest Holmes is no longer linked twice
  • I did not find a better website name for ref 8, but I did change the website name for refs 9, 10, and 13 here. Is this satisfactory?
Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Support -- EN-Jungwon 16:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
MyCatIsAChonk

Happy to do a source review! No spotcheck needed, looking at formatting/reliability. Will do soon- ping me if I forget by tomorrow! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Ref 3's archived link isn't displaying anything for me, likely because Flash was deprecated
  • Ref 7 is displaying an error page for me
  • Ref 10: remove "| Official Site of the Dallas Cowboys" from title
  • Are the following reliable:
    • Sports Betting Dime
    • profootballnetwork.com (also, shouldn't this be formatted not as a url; "Pro Football Network" is what's in the logo at the top)
    • Pro Football History

Hey man im josh, all done, lovely work! Impressed you discovered my WikiCup strategy ;) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk, thank you so much for the feedback!
  • Ref 3's archive link works fine for me. Ref 2 & 3 both do not have "archived" hyperlinked because they have the archive link as the main link (dead link parameter). They instead have "the original" hyperlinked, which leads to the dead pages in question. Is this by any chance what you're referring to?
  • Ref 7 is a dead link and I made a mistake by not marking the reference as such. I've now marked the reference as a dead url.
  • Ref 10 -- done.
  • Reliability of references:
    • Sports Betting Dime – I do believe, given the context, we should be able to trust the definition of a football statistic from a betting website. Never the less, I've added an additional reference from a website called "Sports Charts" which I've seen used a fair bit in articles related to football definitions. It backs up the definition and I think, at least together, the references should be adequete.
    • Pro Football Network – Formatting fixed. It's contextually reliable and the information on the page is verifiable. This is used for ref 9 and the sentence before its usage uses ref 1. Ref 1 shows some of the same information but in a different format. I've added ref 1 to the the same sentence that I used this site for.
    • Pro Football History – The site can be crufty, that's for sure, but I've always found the "facts" they state to be verifiable. In this case, the reference is used to verify the fact that John Riggins led the league in 1983 with the first 20+ rushing touchdowns season, which can be seen in the table itself. Additionally, I thought it might be relevant to share the stat leaders the same year, just in case someone else had beat him to 20 TDs that year, which no one did (Eric Dickerson was second with 18 TDs). While I could have left that statement without a reference, I did think it was better to include that reference as opposed to just letting people look at the table.
I hope I've addressed all your concerns. If not, I'm more than happy to make further changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh, the Wayback Machine page linked at ref 3 is still broken. I mean this in that I see the page's header and border, and tehn along the border, the tab titled "The Run" is selected. But, no content is displaying below it. Everything else looks good, great job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
@MyCatIsAChonk: I see now. I believe I've resolved the issue by pointing to a slightly different target which contained the relevant information. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Image review – All of the photos have appropriate free licenses. The lead image lacks alt text, unlike the rest, so it would be nice to see that taken care of. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Giants2008: Fixed, thank you for catching that. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 15:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [9].

List of awards and honours received by Angela Merkel

Nominators: Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC) and Hey man im josh 14:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

After Hey man im josh and I's extensive work on it, this list is finally complete. It would be great to have a FL to support Angela Merkel, which I plan to bring to FAC in the (hopefully not-too-distant) future after recently bringing it up to GA. Hey man im josh was kind enough to guide me through the process and do at least half the work on this list, thanks again for that! The most recent addition to Merkel's state honours (from Germany) received lots of media attention, and I expect that this list will continue to grow for at least a few years. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk
  • Merkel was chancellor of Germany from... - "the" chancellor of Germany
  • ...and she was the first female chancellor of Germany. - remove "she", as the subject is already identified at the start of the sentence
  • Merkel has also commonly been described as leader of the free world. - "the" leader of the...
  • In all the tables, the least column's header should read "Ref(s)" since some cells have multiple
  • IMO, some of the things under "Awards" aren't awards, like Time Person of the Year. Perhaps change the header to "Awards and other honours" or something else more broad
  • Remove periods from captions that are not full sentences (e.g. "Merkel receiving the Bavarian Order of Merit in 2023." is not a complete sentence, therefore it should not have a period)

Actualcpscm, nothing else from me, excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: I've implemented all of your suggestions, aside from the last one. I chose to make the captions into complete sentences instead of removing the periods. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

  • Merkel the world's second most powerful person in 2012 and 2015 and the world's most powerful woman fourteen times. -- might need a comma after 2015. That's all I got.
  • Support. Nothing else to quibble. An excellent, well-researched, and informative work. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
    @Pseud 14: I agree, I've added a comma which I think makes the lead flow better. Thank you very much for reviewing our work! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Well prepared list documenting significant recognition of a world figure.--Ipigott (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 15:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  • 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.
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) 12:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [10].

List of National Football League annual scoring leaders

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This is #8 in the series of NFL annual statistical leaders. Formatting is based off of past successful featured lists from the series. As always, I will do my best to respond and address issues as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk
  • Nowhere in the lead is "scoring leader" defined- this is likely very simple, but I'm not sure if it means something else (I have no AmE football knowledge); perhaps define it somewhere
  • As above, I'm struggling to understand something- all the ways to score points that you described in para 1 seem to be done by the team, but the list only describes individuals having points. What's going on here?

Hey man im josh, I see no other issues- again, apologize for my lack of knowledge on the subject! Excellent work on the tables! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey @MyCatIsAChonk, thank you for taking the time to review my nomination. I believe I've better defined who the scoring leader is and how that's determined. The wording can be a little clunky when trying to describe these concepts, so please do tell me if it's not clear enough. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Support - much better! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
  • I concur with MyCatIsAChonk - the lead would benefit from clarification that in the case of a touchdown, the player scoring it is credited with the points, in the case of a kicking player the kicker is credited with the points..........are those the only options? I confess my knowledge of American football is not that wonderful either..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
    • It's also striking that it always used to be non-kickers who were the leaders and now it's pretty much kickers all the way. Is there a reason why the game has evolved in this way that could (if appropriately sourced) be mentioned in the lead? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
      • Hey @ChrisTheDude, thank you very much for the feedback. I've made some changes that I hope address your concerns. Kicking and scoring a touchdown are the primary ways of scoring, with a safety being the only other way to score, though these are not common.
The positional changes over time are more to do with the fact that positions in football were often not well defined early on in the league's history. As time went on, teams began to have dedicated, specialized placekickers, whereas before then the person who kicked field goals would usually be someone who played a different position on the team. In fact, if I were to do a full break down of how each player scored their points, you would find that a lot of the early "non-kickers" were actually kicking in addition to their regular duties. Don Hutson, the player who led the league in five consecutive seasons, has actually scored by rushing, receiving, returning interceptions, kicking, AND causing a safety! You can see this at the scoring summary section of this page. This means that Hutson scored in all 3 phases of football (offense, defense, and special teams), which would be unheard of nowadays. In short though, it's been the evolution of the game to have people become more specialized in positions instead of playing multiples like Don Hutson did. I considered trying to explain this in the lead, but I felt as though when working on it that it ended up being too heavily based on synthesis. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333 verification check
  • "A player is not credited with points scored if they pass for a touchdown." - I don't see this mentioned in NFL/Pro Football HOF.
  • I think the NFL reference should come after the "For statistical purposes" sentence as it's verified there.
  • "before being absorbed into the NFL in 1970" - needs a source to show that in 1970, the AFL was merged into the NFL.
  • Dutch Clark was a Tailback.
  • There's no position for Jack Manders's 1934 season at his Pro Football Reference source. Extra source needed.
  • Position is missing at Don Hutson's 1942 season at PFR. Extra source needed.
  • Elroy Hirsch played as an End in 1951.
  • Lou Groza was a Tackle in 1957.
  • Don Chandler was Punter in 1963.
  • 1967 Cardinals should be linked to the NFL team at 1967 St. Louis Cardinals (NFL) season.
  • Mason Crosby is no longer with the Packers, so he doesn't need to be shaded in 2007 as active.
  • Jason Myers has 143 points in 2022.
  • "Gostkowski also has the second longest streak of consecutive seasons" - he's tied for second (as Cappelletti had 4 back to back season records as well). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the feedback @MrLinkinPark333. Some of the issues stemmed from my thought process changing from when I started out and I thought I had cleaned all of that up, but apparently not. I believe I’ve addressed and implemented all of your suggestions with a single exceptions.
  • "A player is not credited with points scored if they pass for a touchdown." - I don't see this mentioned in NFL/Pro Football HOF.
  • The passer is not the player who scores the touchdown, the receiver is the one who does so, which is why I added the clarification. We also wouldn't credit the holder on a field goal with points scored for a similar reason. After thinking about it, I've actually removed this line because I don't think the clarification is necessary.
I'm glad these were caught but I do feel embarassed there were this many things to catch. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
No worries! It's better to catch them now instead of having them missed. The remaining points above that haven't been resolved are: Jack Manders's 1934 position needs extra source, and the "For statistical purposes" could be cited with the NFL source. Thank you for the quick changes :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: in case you haven't seen my comment above. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey @MrLinkinPark333: I did not actually see your comment and then I was on vacation during the time of your last ping. While I know Twitter is not a reliable source, I wanted to share this tweet with you to help explain the situation. I did find the paper on Newspapers.com and I thought I had it in my bookmarks, but apparently not. The gist of what I found was that he was a halfback (note that the article in that tweet mentions room in the backfield for him) but that he also had kicking duties and, because of his record breaking season and his success, they did not want to not give him some type of All-Pro credit. So, because of the All-Pro designation and the lack of placekicker as a designated position until quite some time later, it creates a bit of confusion. Does this help to clear it up? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
With those articles, those articles doesn't specifically say he was a halfback. As the sources say he was a placekicker in 1934, I think it'd be better to cite the newspaper (and not the twitter post) that say he was a placekicker for now. If you happen to see a source that says he was a halfback in 1934, you could add or swap out the source. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: It specifically mentions him as being part of the backfield in that link. As mentioned, placekicker was not a designated position at the time and "Honor man" is not an acceptable position to list either. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Then in that case, I think you should either need a source that specifically mentions he was a halfback in 1934 (doesn't have to be the one mentioned from twitter) or remove the position for 1934. This is currently original research as the halfback isn't the only offensive backfield position. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: His whole career he was designated as a fullback or a halfback, as evidenced by the already included reference. It's very clearly not original research. Never the less, I have added an additional newspaper reference that refers to him as a halfback. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the extra citation! The only other thing is the "For statistical purposes" sentences could be cited with the NFL citation, then you're all set for verification check. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: There's nothing to cite, as it's not even explained in most situations because it usually goes without saying. Players in the NFL do not get points for an assist (passing the ball to a player who crosses into the end zone). I even reached out to Pro-football-reference.com about this and they thought a clarification on this point was unnecessary. The typical definition is "Total points scored by all means" and when you go to the Scoring Summary table on a page, such as this one, you can see that passing touchdowns are not listed anywhere. This is because, as mentioned, the person who assists in scoring the points is not the person actually scoring said points. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I suggested this part could be cited as one of your citations, NFL operations, as all of this verified in terms of the types of points. Since this is only mentioned in the lead, I thought that reusing the citation here would be helpful. However, as these types of points are already cited earlier in the paragraph, the citation may not be needed to be reused here. In this case, I don't mind skipping over this point. As that was the last thing leftover from above, I'll give this a support. Thank you for working on the remaining points quickly! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Image review – Appropriate free licenses, captions and alt text are included with all images used in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [11].

List of Detroit Lions first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This would be my 9th FL overall and #21 in the FL series based on NFL franchise's first-round draft pick history. I based the formatting and structure on the other 20 lists at Wikipedia:Featured lists#National Football League. As always, please let me know if you find any issues or anything that can be improved upon and I will do my best to respond and make changes as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by CaptainTeebs
  • If I had a nickel for every time the Lions drafted one of the greatest skill position players ever and caused them to lose their passion for football and retire in their prime, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. I'll leave comments soon.--CaptainTeebs (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    @CaptainTeebs: The life of a Lions fan includes much misery and disappointment, at least for the last few decades. Never the less... I'm drinking the blue Kool aid. There is hope on the horizon that we may soon stop hearing about the Lions last playoff win being 1991 and that we've never won the division. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Very well done with this list, don't see anything to fix. CaptainTeebs (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Comments
  • "Moved down the draft order in trade Kansas City Chiefs" - missing a word, I think
  • Notes A and G do not need full stops
  • That's it, I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Done! Thanks so much for looking over the list and providing feedback =) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Comments
  • "The team which received this "bonus" pick forfeited its selection in the final round of the draft and became ineligible for another "bonus pick" after they were awarded the pick." I may have been responsible for this, but "after they were awarded the pick" can probably be replaced with "afterwards" since you have already established that it is in relation to the pick
  • Do you think that somethinglike the sentence "Since the first draft, the Lions have selected 91 players in the first round." might be better as the first sentence of the article (with some amendments, but so it is clear from the beginning what the topic is)?

That's pretty much it from here. (For full disclosure: I offered Josh comments on this article off-wiki, on the discord prior to nomination).Eddie891 Talk Work 15:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions @Eddie891 (both on and off-wiki), I very much appreciate it! I've implemented your first suggestion, which definitely flows better. As for the second point, I see where you're coming from, but I'm finding it difficult to find a place for it earlier in the lead without it feeling shoehorned in.
  • First paragraph -> Intro to the team
  • Second paragraph -> General overview of what the draft is (not yet team specific)
  • Third paragraph -> More specific info about the draft in general (when it started, not yet team specific)
  • Fourth and fifth paragraphs -> Team specific facts
I'm open to it but I'm just not sure how without doing a larger rearrangement of sorts which I think will read more clunkily. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I guess you're right, happy to Support Eddie891 Talk Work 17:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
EN-Jungwon
  • Is there a reason why the image of Calvin Johnson is in the footnotes section?
  • Ref 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 36, 37, 40, 43, 44; add |via=[[Newspaper.com]]
  • Ref 20; add |url-access=subscription
  • Ref 23; add author Max Demara and date=22 April 2019
  • Ref 30, 39; is there a better website name for this
  • Some refs have missing authors and dates. PLease add them.

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon:
  • Calvin Johnson picture image – No, I just wanted to add another image and I thought it fit well there. In hindsight, this section is essentially treated like a reference section, so it should not actually be included there. I've moved it.
  • Ref 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 36, 37, 40, 43, 44; add – Done with "Newspapers.com" instead of "Newspaper.com" (now refs 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46). Thank you, I'll keep this in mind for future references I add from Newspapers.com.
  • Ref 20; add |url-access=subscription – Done
  • Ref 23; add author Max Demara and date=22 April 2019 – Done (now ref 25)
  • Ref 30, 39; is there a better website name for this – (Now refs 32 and 39) There's nowhere I can find on-wiki to link to, but I have changed it from "=www.prosportstransactions.com" to "=Pro Sports Transactions". Is this acceptable?
  • Some refs have missing authors and dates. PLease add them. – I believe I've added them wherever possible now.
On a related note, is there a better citation tool I could be using to help catch some of these things that I've missed? I find these critiques quite helpful, but after several hours working on an article I'm bound to miss one of these again if the citation tool isn't including them. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Support. I didn't use any tools to review this list. I just went through each reference one by one. -- EN-Jungwon 10:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
@Giants2008: I noticed this list is listed as needing a source review as of a couple days ago. Is this review by EN-Jungwon not enough for a source review? Or does someone need to explicitly state that a source review has been passed? Hey man im josh (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: Yes, an explicit source review is what we need at some stage. @EN-Jungwon: was this specifically meant to be a source review? If so, please put a bold Source review or similar in the future so that the closers can see at a glance whether this part of the review has been completed. Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind moving forward, thanks @Giants2008. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
This is more of a formatting review. I'm not sure how to do a source review so I'm no help there. -- EN-Jungwon 09:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Source review
  • Major questions about the paraphrasing in this list:
    • Text: "is an annual event which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment", ref 8: "is an annual event [...] which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment". This is verbatim from Ref 8.
    • Text: "Detroit forfeited their 1966 first-round selection [...] to the Green Bay Packers as compensation for signing free agent Ron Kramer", ref 16: "1966 The Lions forfeited their first-round selection to the Green Bay Packers as compensation for signing free agent Ron Kramer". Again this is verbatim.
    • Text: "From 1947 through 1958 the first selection was awarded by a random draw. [...] By 1958 all twelve clubs in the league at the time had received a bonus choice and the system was abolished" Ref 12: "From 1947 through 1958, the first selection of the draft was [...] awarded to the winner of a random draw. [...] The system was abolished after 1958, by which time all clubs had received a Bonus pick.". The first sentence is practically verbatim, and the second is moving the clauses of the source around.

Unfortunately I think this source review is going to have to be an oppose (see below) for now, based on the repeated evidence of close paraphrasing and verbatim text-lifting. I have not spot-checked all sources, so the problems could be more widespread. This will need to be fixed in all cases before I strike this !vote. Sorry, Schminnte [talk to me] 22:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow that's embarrassing, thanks for bringing these up @Schminnte. I actually had issues with the text in the first and third quotes and that was the wording that was chosen in other lists that I had been using for reference, so I'll make sure to work on that today and, once it's been assessed as making sense and not a violation in any way, I'll replace the same phrasing in other articles. As for the second example, I do think that's a coincidence, as it's the phrasing I've been using for these types of lists, but I'll work on rephrasing it and ping again once all these issues have been resolved. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "...is an annual event which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment" – That text is taken from and used on National Football League Draft. That text, in that exact phrasing, has existed at the page since May 18, 2018, which predates the article that's used as reference (February 18, 2021). Do you still think the text should be changed?
  • I've changed "Detroit forfeited their 1966 first-round selection [...] to the Green Bay Packers as compensation for signing free agent Ron Kramer" to "Detroit traded their 1966 first-round selection (No. 8 overall) to the Green Bay Packers for the right to sign free agent Ron Kramer.". This is arguably a more accurate reflection of the exchange and I've added a couple sources that help to support that. I didn't realize the previous text used was present in a completely separate reference than what I used for that note.
  • I've reworked the paragraph that the quotes in the third bullet point are pulled from.
Hopefully this addresses all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, meant to send a ping to you @Schminnte. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I think I'm satisfied with that. I'll strike the oppose and continue the source review. Schminnte [talk to me] 17:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Source reliability looks fine apart from one query: what makes Pro Sports Transactions a reliable source?
  • Could citations be standardised to either title or sentence case?
  • Other spotchecks seem fine

I think that's all now. Schminnte [talk to me] 17:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte:
  • Pro Sports Transaction has never been discussed as a reliable source on-wiki, at least as far as I could tell. It's a sports database which I don't tend to give enough weight to be the only source, but I use it to help verify some minor aspects of trades. To be more specific, the overall pick numbers for later round picks are often not included in trade summaries in newspaper articles, instead being referred to as a "seventh-round selection", and not specified beyond that. In instances where I use this reference, it's only meant to support what position in the draft that those later picks end up being, which are ultimately insignificant to the article's scope, but help to provide additional context (in my opinion). This is also often the case with teams listing their own draft history as well, which is part of what makes it frustrating when trying to find more well known sources. Hopefully that makes sense and answers the question adequately.
  • It was my understanding that we don't typically look for standardization of the titles that the sources choose to use.
Thanks. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh:
  • I'm more meaning about its reliability, not what it supports. The reason I ask is that it seems to be a self published source by Frank Marousek. Can you verify that he is a subject matter expert, or that the site has been used by other reliable sources?
  • As I'm more used to FAC, I didn't realise that this wasn't common here. Still, per MOS:ALLCAPS, citations should be standardised for a consistent WP:CITESTYLE.
Hope this helps, Schminnte [talk to me] 17:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@Schminnte: I've replaced the references for Pro Sports Transactions until I hear back the site (I've reached out to them, as I would like to use this reference in the future). As for the reference formatting, I'm going to ping @PresN about the capitalization consistency of references, as I don't believe that's ever been something that we've looked for at FLC and I'd like to get clarification from them on this. Also, I don't believe I have any references that are all caps, just capitalizations that are inconsistent among the references because I took the capitalization of the titles used by the sources, which I thought would be more appropriate than changing the capitalization that they use. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
We enforce not having ALLCAPS/shouting, but that's it. We don't enforce a consistent title capitalization scheme in references; frankly neither do most people at FAC, I've only had someone bring it up to me once. I know it got into a guideline somewhere, but I personally find it a little strange to reformat ref titles to align to sentence case vs title case instead of following the actual source title capitalization. --PresN 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Funnily, I was asking since that's what I've been exposed to as well at FAC. Maybe I've fallen victim to a small sample size bias, my bad. Anyway, if that's not needed then I'm happy with the source review now, so this is a pass. Schminnte [talk to me] 08:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @PresN, appreciate the quick response and clarification. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  • 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.
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [12].

List of Detroit Lions seasons

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm hopeful that this will round out the Detroit Lions lists and be the tenth FL that I've been involved in. This is the first NFL team seasons lists that I've worked on, so I apologize if there are any issues with it. I used two recently promoted featured lists, List of Baltimore Ravens seasons and List of Houston Texans seasons, as reference points for this list. As always, I will do my best to respond quickly to any comments or concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments
  • "the last of which was in 1957" => "the last of these was in 1957"
  • "with the Lions last post-season victory" => "with the Lions' last post-season victory"
  • Think that's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
    As always, thanks so much for taking a look and providing feedback @ChrisTheDude. I've made the suggested changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Source review
  • Citation 5: Vintage Detroit seems to be a store rather than a reputable source.
  • Citation 11: AP should be listed as the agency, not the work.
  • Citations 25, 60, and 74: Unnecessary repetition of "Pro Football Hall of Fame" in the title.
  • Citation 8 covers the Jacksonville and Houston sentences better than the P-F-R citations.
  • Where are the awards sourced to?
  • The notes in the table ought to be moved to the appropriate cell instead of being stuffed in between citations.
  • Not a source thing, but shouldn't the "Head coaches" column be singular?

The majority of citations are to a reliable database, though I wouldn't mind seeing some more variety. SounderBruce 19:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Citation 5: Huh, yeah, I guess it is. I have friends that send me links from that site, so I guess they do do news stories, but being that they're an apparel company as well, it's clearly not a great source. I've removed it but not replaced it, as the fact it was verifying is backed up by a reliable source already.
  • Citation 11: Why should AP be the agency and not the work in this situation?
  • Citations 25, 60, and 74: Done.
  • Citation 8: I've actually replaced the refs for that sentence altogether.
  • Where are the awards sourced to? – Well here's fun news, that's actually a major screw up of mine, which I'm extremely glad you caught. For some reason I thought I had sourced the awards to the PFR pages, which is simply not true. I'm quite embarrassed I missed this and I've added sources for the awards now. I'll also be adding sources to the other season articles that I have prepped for FL nominations, because I'm definitely missing references based on this misunderstanding.
  • The notes in the table ought to be moved to the appropriate cell instead of being stuffed in between citations. – I've moved some notes where I can, but the notes about the number of regular season games changing or strike shortened seasons seem best to be placed in the refs column at this point in time. I'm not sure I love it, but I understand the suggestion and I see how it can be more useful for readers.
  • Not a source thing, but shouldn't the "Head coaches" column be singular? – You know what, you're right. Fixed.
Thank you very much for taking a look at this and reviewing it @SounderBruce. I think I've addressed all of your concerns except for citation 11 (now citation 9). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per changes made. I'm not too concerned about the formatting for the APnews citation, as it can go either way. SounderBruce 02:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you @SounderBruce! I did update the ref as well to be "AP News" instead of bypassing to "Associated Press". Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
NØ
  • Image review - pass: Images are all appropriately licensed, relevant, and with alt texts.
  • Support on prose as well. No issues there!--NØ 21:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for the review and support! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 12:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [13].

List of National Football League annual interceptions leaders

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This is #9 in the series of NFL annual statistical leaders (7th one I've contributed to). Formatting is based off of past successful featured lists from the series. As always, I will do my best to respond and address issues as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

COmments
  • First sentence needs to mention that we are talking about American football
  • "did not begin tracking interceptions under 1940" - until, surely?
  • "Dick Lynch led the league twice during the 1960's" - 1960s doesn't have an apostrophe
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for looking over the list and providing this helpful feedback. I've made fixes that I hope address all of your comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

NØ

  • Image review: The source links on all(!) of the images appear to be dead. Have you looked at the archive to see if something can be salvaged?
  • Source review: The references follow a consistent format which italicizes all of the website names and the few links I spotchecked are working. Apologies for not being familiar with sports sources. If Pro-Football-Reference.com is considered a reputed source then the SR passes.
  • The prose is top quality so it is a support on that front.--NØ 15:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    @MaranoFan: Pro-Football-Reference.com is indeed considered a reliable source (based on sources used by User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter) and I use it extensively for the lists that I work on. As for the source links for images, is it standard to expect that the original sources are active or linked via archive? This is something I haven't had asked of me before. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)*
    When the source links are dead I usually ask for the archives just to verify the files were avilable under the stated license (it is also appropriate to link them in a bracket after the dead link on the file page). Exceptions can always be made if they are not available on the archive site, though.--NØ 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    @MaranoFan: Am I meant to edit the file, or do you just want the links? I'll put the work in I just want to make sure I'm doing it right :) Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    It could go in parenthesis after the dead link, like what I've done here for example, if you want to add it to the file. For the purpose of the image review, I would just need to see that the licensing is correct so providing the links is sufficient!--NØ 20:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks @MaranoFan. I'll take a crack at that tomorrow (probably) and send you a ping once I've gone through all the images. Appreciate the tip and example! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    @MaranoFan: I was able to add archive links for all of the images except for the first one, which features Night Train Lane. I did manage to find the image in 3 locations though (1, 2, 3). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    The source and image reviews both pass.--NØ 16:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Support from Gonzo_fan2007
  • who then gains possession for their team, it's minor, but "typically" should be added here. If the intercepting team then proceeds to fumble the ball (which happened quite recently), then the intercepting team wouldn't automatically gain possession.
  • I am guessing that the number after the player name means how many times they have led the league? Could you make that text small (matches other lists that do this) and clarify somewhere what this means. Also, that number should go before the symbols (†, for example).
  • You could note in Don Hutson's that he led the league in interceptions the same year he led the league in touchdown catches. Just a recommendation.
  • Is there data for interceptions returned for touchdowns? Could be an interesting addition to the table.

That's all I got, nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  • ...it's minor, but "typically" should be added here. If the intercepting team then proceeds to fumble the ball (which happened quite recently), then the intercepting team wouldn't automatically gain possession. – I actually thought about this scenario prior to nominating. The way that I interpret this is that any player with possession can lose possession at any point and that's sort of a separate aspect compared to the interception itself, once it's considered to be a catch anyways.
  • I am guessing that the number after the player name means how many times they have led the league? Could you make that text small (matches other lists that do this) and clarify somewhere what this means. Also, that number should go before the symbols (†, for example). – It's actually clarified in the key with the symbol as (#). I'm open to reworking how this is called out in the key if the current iteration is at all confusing. I'm absolutely open to making the numbers smaller, but this is the seventh annual stat list I've nominated and I've put the symbol before the number of appearances within the list each time. I believe, from a quick lookover of the annual stat lists (I have a list of them here, it is actually consistent with other similar lists. Additionally, I think it makes sense to show the symbol before the number in brackets because we don't include it on the first occurrence, making it appear to be more consistent formatting by including the symbol first.
  • You could note in Don Hutson's that he led the league in interceptions the same year he led the league in touchdown catches. Just a recommendation. – Good call out, I already mentioned that he's a two-way player, so it makes perfect sense to mention. I included that he led in scoring and receiving touchdowns.
  • Is there data for interceptions returned for touchdowns? Could be an interesting addition to the table. – It looks like there is actually considering Ace Parker's PFR shows that he had a pick-6. I like that suggestion, I'll start working on it.
As always, I very much appreciate your feedback and review @Gonzo fan2007. You always get my brain thinking about how these lists could be better. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Nothing here that would prevent me from supporting. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I've added the pick-6 column, thanks again for the suggestion and review @Gonzo fan2007. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
One other question. I feel like this is the first time I have noticed data (numbers) being left-justified in the table. I am not sure if there is an MOS, but anecdotally I feel like most number data is represented as either center justified or right justified. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: Funny you mention that, it's been bugging me for a bit too and I was on the fence about it. You think I should implement the centering on the statistic that the annual page is based on and the GPs column on this and the other annual lists I've promoted? Hey man im josh (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I definitely prefer center alignment for any numerical value. It wouldn't stop my support either way tho. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 03:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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) 12:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [14].

List of New Orleans Saints seasons

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be up to featured list quality. This is my second NFL team seasons list and I will, as always, do my best to respond prompty to all comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments from ULPS
  • "Refs" is an abbreviation, so use the template
  • It feels somewhat clunky for During the team's worst season in 1980 the fans began to wear paper bags over their heads to games and started to call the team the "'Aints". The Saints did not have their first winning-season until 1987, their twenty-first season in the league. That same season, the Saints made their first playoff appearance. to be at the end, perhaps move it earlier in the paragraph?
  • When there are multiple coaches in a season, I think you should put a note next to their record specifying what exactly those numbers mean. IMO it's not completely clear that it's their record otherwise.
  • Coaches are wikilinked after their first mention, not needed.

Not really any major comments, nice work! ULPS (talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  • "Refs" is an abbreviation, so use the template – Done
  • It feels somewhat clunky... – I see what you've getting at. I've moved the sentences around a bit, let me know your thoughts.
  • When there are multiple coaches in a season, I think you should put a note next to their record specifying what exactly those numbers mean. IMO it's not completely clear that it's their record otherwise. – I feel as though it's contextually clear, how strongly do you feel about this?
  • Coaches are wikilinked after their first mention, not needed. – MOS:DUPLINK allows for re-linking within tables. I've kept it consistent within the list, but it is my personal preference to re-link within lists that I work on.
Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Since I had to move my reply and didn't ping (I think I submitted too soon on accident), I just wanted to send a ping your way to let you know I've responded @ULPS. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm cool with the changes, don't have any other gripes. Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments
  • "five months after the 89th United States Congress approved the merger of the NFL with the American Football League (AFL) in June of that year" - I think the last five words are redundant as most people can work out that five months prior to November was June
  • "In January 1967, the team was given the current "New Orleans Saints" name" => "In January 1967, the team was given the name "New Orleans Saints""
  • "Since the franchise's creation, it has been based in New Orleans." - I think "Throughout the franchise's history, it has always been based in New Orleans." would make the point clearer
  • Any way to make it so the next two sentences don't both start with "the team"?
  • "originally Louisiana Superdome from 1975 to 2011 and formerly Mercedes-Benz Superdome from 2011 to 2021" => "originally Louisiana Superdome from 1975 to 2011 and later Mercedes-Benz Superdome from 2011 to 2021"
  • "Tom remained owner" => "He remained owner"
  • "Gayle has since" => "She has since"
  • "The Saints did not have their first winning-season" - no reason for that hyphen -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
    Fantastic feedback as always, thank you @ChrisTheDude! I've implemented all of your suggested changes and I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Steelkamp
  • Is it necessary to have the initialism "AFL" in the lead when the AFL is not mentioned again in the lead?
  • NFL playoffs could be linked in the earlier mention of "playoffs" rather than later in the same sentence.
  • "During the team's worst season in 1980[A] the fans began to wear paper bags over their heads to games and started to call the team the "'Aints"." Is this sentence strictly necessary for this list? I think it's a bit too much information for a list like this.
  • Could you consider using Template:Nowrap in the head coaches column around the parts in brackets? On my browser, "(1–5–1)" is split between different lines when it would look better as one line.

Those are all the comments I have. Support in light of there being no major issues. Steelkamp (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your review @Steelkamp! To address your points...
  • Is it necessary to have the initialism "AFL" in the lead when the AFL is not mentioned again in the lead?
– I mentioned the AFL in the lead because the acronym is used again later in footnote B.
  • NFL playoffs could be linked in the earlier mention of "playoffs" rather than later in the same sentence. – Good catch, fixed.
  • During the team's... Is this sentence strictly necessary for this list? I think it's a bit too much information for a list like this. – I think a brief mention of history is sometimes relevant, especially given the context that their first winning season was their twenty-first in the league. Other NFL articles have brief mentions of history, especially those with historic bad streaks. The nickname is also somewhat relevant as it comes up whenever the Saints aren't playing well. A similar one would have been List of Detroit Lions seasons mentioning some of the negatives of my beloved franchise.
  • Could you consider using Template:Nowrap in the head coaches column... – Good suggestion, done. I'll implement this on other season articles I've worked/am working on moving forward.
I appreciate the feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gonzo_fan2007

Only minor comments that don't affect my support:

  • The "Finish, T-# and Pct" seem redundant or self-explanatory (you have the tooltip on the column headers in the table)
  • Recommend {{Win-loss record}} for the head coach column
  • If you rowspan the reference cells in the "Total" row, you can remove some duplication
  • The note about the worst season in the last sentence of the lead should just be written out, either inline in the sentence or in parenthesis.
  • Source review: Passed
    • Ref #1 - I would add the primary title "New Orleans Saints - Team Facts"
    • Ref #41 - the title can be shortened to "Jim Mora - Head Coach - New Orleans Saints Legends", which is the title on the web page
    • All references are archived, are reliable sources and are appropriately formatted. Spot checks showed good connection to the data that was cited.

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I've implemented most of your suggestions. I did not remove Finish, to clarify that this may represent the division or conference and not their finish against the overall league, T-# because I think others could use the clarification, and pct because I like that a person may click on "winning percentage" in the key, whereas they cannot for the tooptip. I did not change ref 1 because, and please do help me understand this if I'm incorrect, wouldn't that be editorializing the target's title? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey man im josh, you may find {{Abbrlink}} useful. It Allows the generation of a tooltip while also providing a clickable link. (I.e. PctTooltip Winning percentage). Regarding the title, I try to stick to what is provided on the page; that said for ProFootballHoF.com, the way that they split up their web pages is ridiculous. So I tend to clarify the team I am talking about in the title. That said, not a big issue, obviously. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I've had that same problem with ProFootballHoF.com when citing those team fact pages, I hate it. Thank you for the advice! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 03:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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) 12:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [15].

List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) and ~ Tails Wx (he/him, aroace, 🐾) 23:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the first featured list I've worked on, doing so cooperatively with Hey man im josh, who's the co-nominator. This list's structure and formatting was based on recently promoted List of Detroit Lions first-round picks. I'm grateful for Josh's help on the list and am hopeful that he will have his eleventh featured list, and my first! Please let us know of any issues or concerns on the list; we'll do our best to address them. ~ Tails Wx (he/him, aroace, 🐾) 23:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The franchise was founded in Decatur, Illinois, on September 20, 1920, and became professional on September 17, 1920, and moved to Chicago in 1921" => "The franchise was founded in Decatur, Illinois, on September 20, 1920, became professional on September 17, 1920, and moved to Chicago in 1921"
  • "to the Philadelphia Eagles in exchange for their 2023 first-round selection (No. 10 overall) and 2024 fourth-round selection (No. yet to be determined)" => "to the Philadelphia Eagles in exchange for their 2023 first-round selection (No. 10 overall) and 2024 fourth-round selection (no. yet to be determined)"
  • That's all I got!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: both done here, thanks! ~ Tails Wx (he/him, aroace, 🐾) 17:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments by RunningTiger123
  • I tried to figure out how the team could become professional before it was even founded, but when I checked the sources, they said the franchise started on September 17 and there is no mention of September 20. Are better sources available to explain this?
  • "8 Pro Bowls" – probably better to spell out eight (MOS:NUMERAL)
  • 1974 and 2003 notes should not use periods for consistency
  • Dick Harris and Joe Gray do not sort correctly

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, not a change to make now, but capitalization may need to change depending on this RFC (though I have no clue how that discussion's going to be closed). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@RunningTiger123: - I can't believe I didn't pick up on the bit about the club apparently turning professional three days BEFORE being formed. I'd be intrigued to know the answer..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Done here, here and here. Apparently, according to bearswire.usatoday.com (that's been added as a reference) the franchise was founded and became professional on the same day, September 17, 1920. Thus, I've amended the information; and since the content was from the Chicago Bears, I've also changed it there here. ~ Tails Wx (he/him • aroace • 🐾) 02:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
To say "became professional" would indicate that the franchise had previously not been professional. If it was founded as a professional franchise then there is no need at all to state "and became professional" because it was never not professional -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
It looks like this was actually a mistake implemented into Chicago Bears, from which I copied that sentence from. The franchise was founded in 1919 and played a year of football before joining the league. At some point someone made a change to the main Chicago Bears page and changed 1919 to 1920 and I didn't notice when I transferred this. I'm kicking myself for it because I knew the Bears played a season outside of the pro league too. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
So should this article in fact say that the franchise was founded in 1919 and became professional in 1920? Because as it stands the wording doesn't really make sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: That's exactly what it should state. I've tweaked the changes made at Chicago Bears and made changes at List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks to reflect this. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
For reference, this can sort of actually happen. A city is awarded a team and then the city determines who the owner will be and then the team takes a day or two to actually get registered. Unless you look at is "Unnamed team" was founded, and then had it's name chosen later on. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I believe all your concerns have been addressed @RunningTiger123. Thank you for taking the time to review the list, Tails and I very much appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Support by Gonzo_fan2007
  • No pick should be sorted so it falls at the beginning/end of the list. You can do this by writing out ''{{Sort|1=0|2=No pick}}'' in each cell
  • You have plenty of room to write out the "positions" in the table. Maybe this is just a personal preference, but for me I like to have as much info in the table and as little need to look at a key as possible. That way, the position abbreviations key can just be removed.
  • The "Season, Pick, Position, College" parts of the key should be removed. These are so self-explanatory that explanation is unneeded, or if absolutely necessary you could include a note. But honestly, we rarely explain column headers in a key in any other list, why this one?
  • Recommend that you move Ref #20 from all the column headers to the table title (i.e. after "Chicago Bears first-round draft picks by season").
  • Any reason not to drop more photos down the side of the table?
  • The Bears have had a number of first round picks selected as Rookie of the Year. This should be added as a pertinent award for this type of list (you can see what I did at List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks). I would also add MVP award to the table, but that one is probably more a personal decision.
  • Ref #76 hasn't been archived. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • No pick should be sorted so it falls at the beginning/end of the list. You can do this by writing out No pick in each cell – Does it not do that for you currently? No pick ends up at the top of the list, as if its value is 0 (for me personally). When I went to implement the sort template that you suggested I noticed it's attempting to add a Wikilink, which would be a redlink and unfortunately the sort template doesn't include a nolink parameter. Perhaps {{Date table sorting}} could work for this?
    • Did you user {{Sort}} or {{Sortname}}? Right now, it sorts in the middle of players with the last name that starts with "N". "Sortname" adds a link, but "sort" doesn't. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • {{Sort}} was giving me issues, but I implemented a bastardized version of {{sortname}} here that I think addresses your sorting concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • You have plenty of room to write out the "positions" in the table. Maybe this is just a personal preference, but for me I like to have as much info in the table and as little need to look at a key as possible. That way, the position abbreviations key can just be removed. – There's room, but it's also probably better for smaller screens that we don't write it out fully. This has also just been the format I've followed on these lists, as most of them don't write the positions out fully in my experience.
    • The width of the column right now is restricted to the length of the word "Position", the citation link, and the sort arrows. That length is about the same length as most positions (Defensive end is the longest typical position). The additional width is likely only a few characters wider than the present width, while gaining a massive benefit for "readers who are unfamiliar with the subject". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I've abbreviated the column and updated the key to reflect this update. I'm open to listing the positions by a non-abbreivated name, I think I'd just prefer that it be a change adopted across all of the first-round pick lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • The "Season, Pick, Position, College" parts of the key should be removed. These are so self-explanatory that explanation is unneeded, or if absolutely necessary you could include a note. But honestly, we rarely explain column headers in a key in any other list, why this one? – That may be a fair point. I suppose my goal is always for readers who are unfamiliar with the subject to be able to read and understand a list at first glance. How strongly do you feel about this? I only ask because I'm considering whether it should be implemented across all of the relevant lists.
    • I mean, I don't feel strongly about anything really lol, I just think it is excessive and in most other lists I don't see it unless the we have to use acronyms or something that really needs to be explained. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Any thoughts on this one? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
      @Gonzo fan2007: I can't really argue for it except for WP:ILIKEIT, so I've removed it. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Recommend that you move Ref #20 from all the column headers to the table title (i.e. after "Chicago Bears first-round draft picks by season"). – I actually would like to not do this, as it would, in my opinion, imply that the notes column is also being verified by this reference. As it stands, I think it's clear that the notes column is not.
    • Any reason not to drop more photos down the side of the table? – Not particularly, I'll start looking for a few more good ones.
    • The Bears have had a number of first round picks selected as Rookie of the Year. This should be added as a pertinent award for this type of list (you can see what I did at List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks). I would also add MVP award to the table, but that one is probably more a personal decision. – My problem with this is evaluating which groups of voters/awarders should be used for this. I can see the argument for it though.
    • Ref #76 hasn't been archived. – This was intentional actually. If I were to archive it now, then when I re-used the reference later in note AF, once comp picks have been awarded and the fourth-round pick can actually be specified, it would contain an older version of the source that didn't contain this information. I can get around this though actually by using one of the numerous sources that has reported on this.
    I'll start looking at the pictures and a different source for the 2024 No. 1 pick. I just wanted to get back to you quickly and thank you for looking over the list @Gonzo fan2007. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think I've responded to all the points that were awaiting a reply @Gonzo fan2007. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support regarding the ROY award and the full write out of the positions, I think it would be good to have that discussion to see if consensus is that they should be added, with the default that it be left to a case-by-case basis if there isn't support to include them in all. Nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    That sounds like a good idea to me. I'd love for this series of lists to have some consistency to them. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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) 12:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [16].

List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be of featured list quality. This is the 13th featured list I've been involved in at FLC and the third first-round pick list. This list was re-done based on the recently promoted List of Detroit Lions first-round draft picks (promoted in December). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

Non-expert prose review.

  • Link San Francisco 49ers on first instance.
  • Is there a reason why Season, Pick, Position, and College table heading titles aren't included in the key/legend box as with the Detroit Lions list? I think for consistency with the FL format, perhaps it is worth adding that too. (totally independent of this review, but the Chicago Bears list might also benefit from the same, if not too much work).
  • Optional : any more notable drafted players with image(s) that can be included?
  • That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
@Pseud 14: I've linked to the team on the first instance. I actually removed that portion of the key (season, pick, position, and college) from the Chicago list because Gonzo Fan2007 made a good argument that those portions of the table were self explanatory and didn't really need to be included in the key. I've removed it from the Lions list and the other several first-round draft pick lists I've been working on. I've also added more images to the list. Thank you very much for taking the time to review this list! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. Changes look good and happy to support on prose.Pseud 14 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • In addition to the above......
  • "The 49ers have drafted at first overall" - maybe this is an American usage I am not familiar with, but to me "The 49ers have drafted first overall" sounds more natural
  • "one of whom, Lance Alworth" => "one of these, Lance Alworth" (using "whom" doesn't work after a semi-colon)
  • One the 2008 row, the final punctuation mark is after the footnote. It should be before it.
  • That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the feedback @ChrisTheDude, I've implemented all of your suggestions. As for the "American usage", I wouldn't know, I'm Canadian! I think it was just a mistaken word left in at one point. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gonzo_fan2007
  • of the National Football Conference (NFC) in the NFC West division. - could you change this to of the West Division of the National Football Conference (NFC) so we don't duplicate NFC so close to each other?
  • In the sentence about the gold rush, you could add that they were founded by Tony Morabito, which would already be cited to the 49ers source.
  • three times and selected Harry Babcock in 1953, Dave Parks in 1964, and Alex Smith in 2005. -> three times, selecting Harry Babcock in 1953, Dave Parks in 1964, and Alex Smith in 2005.
  • At the end of the lead, about Lance Alworth, maybe replace "instead" with and never played for the 49ers.
  • Agree with the above about adding maybe a few more photos down the right side.
  • I'm not seeing the benefit to using an abbreviation for "Position". For our readers, wouldn't it just be easier to spell it out?
  • In the See also section, I think the head coaches list and the seasons list are too tangential to be included. The history and draft history articles should suffice
  • Leo Nomellini is a duplicate link in the lead
  • Source review:
    • Except as noted below, references are to reliable sources, are consistently formatted and properly cite the information provided.
    • Spot checks:
      • What makes DAZN.com a reliable source for football information?
      • Just a recommendation, but add "San Francisco 49ers" to "Team Facts" in Ref 5
      • Ref 37, 40, and 44 need the "url-access" field added « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you so much for the review @Gonzo fan2007! I've implemented most of your suggestions, and to address a few points...
    • of the National Football Conference (NFC) in the NFC West division. - could you change this to of the West Division of the National Football Conference (NFC) so we don't duplicate NFC so close to each other? – I understand what you mean by this. I'd prefer to include some of mention that it's the "NFC West" instead of "Western Division" because it is the division's actual name. I also think the capitalization of "Division" and "Western" there could be up for debate. Do you have a suggestion on how to better include the division name, or you think I should just bite the bullet and go for western division instead?
    • I don't feel strongly either way. The NFC West article notes that its full name is "National Football Conference – Western Division", so there is some precedence (I cant tell if that is cited somewhere tho). I'll leave it to you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Why am I overcomplicating this? I need to just do what the San Francisco 49ers page does for their division. That article wikilink NFC West to "Western division".Hey man im josh (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm not seeing the benefit to using an abbreviation for "Position". For our readers, wouldn't it just be easier to spell it out? – My goal with abbreviation the position column was to make the table smaller and more compact for those on mobile. It's not much, but I noticed it helped a bit on my phone.
    • I guess, but at least on my mobile view I can't click on the abbreviation for the tooltip, so kind of defeats the purpose. I feel like it would be better to just spell it out. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    • In the See also section, I think the head coaches list and the seasons list are too tangential to be included. The history and draft history articles should suffice – I'd argue the seasons list should be included in the see also based on the past seasons impacting the draft picks that one gets, but I do see your point about head coaches. Do you think, based on that logic, it's relevant enough for inclusion?
    • It's up to you. I definitely don't think the head coaches list is relevant. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I've removed head coaches. Perhaps I was just doing so because I had the set of 3 (head coaches, seasons, and first-round picks) together in my mind. I've removed head coaches.
    • The NFL is heavily involved with DAZN, including recently agreeing to a 10-year partnership with them last year. DAZN is responsible for the the live streams associated with the NFL Game Pass and NFL RedZone broadcasting. They are, as far as I'm aware, a reputable streaming service who are involved in a wide variety of sports. Given their long-term partnership with the NFL, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume an explanation of the conferences and divisions of the NFL, as well as a mention of the AFL being the NFL's direct competitor prior to the merger, is reliable. I'd understand questioning them if it was a more in-depth subject, but this is more or less a surface level explanation of some of the basics of the NFL which is something I'd expect to be accurate given the context of the NFL and DAZN's partnership.
    I'll make adjustments based on your replies :) Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    I hope I've addressed everything. Thanks again for the review @Gonzo fan2007:!Hey man im josh (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    Support - Source Review Passed « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment Support from Dylan620

I'll try to do an image review when I get home from work. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 15:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review as promised. This is my first time doing one, so bear with me :)
  • All images are licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons, and they contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • Captions are excellent, with well-written prose and adequate sourcing.
  • All images have descriptive alt text. My only suggestion is that I think it may be helpful to describe the colors of the uniforms, but that is coming from someone who does not have much familiarity with the topic area.
  • Each image is well-positioned. I like how there's something of a train that initially runs alongside the right edge of the main table.
Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Dylan620: Thank you so much for the review! I think describing the colours isn't particularly useful in this context and if I started describing colours I'm not sure where it'd be best to stop. I believe, without the colours, the description of being in the team's uniform should be adequate. My goal was to describe what's in the photos with the thought in mind that further elaboration could be sought out if necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: No problem! That sounds reasonable enough to me, and it felt a little bit like a nitpick anyway. I'm comfortable supporting on images. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 09:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 03:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [17].

List of Buffalo Bills first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This is my fourth nomination in the series of NFL team's first-round picks and I hope it will be the 24th featured list in the series. I've based it on my past successful nominations, with the difference being that this team spent 1960–1967 in an independent league that later merged with the NFL whereas my other nominations spent their entire history with the NFL. The third paragraph is new when compared to my other nominations because I had to explain the difference between the AFL and NFL drafts and make mention of the merger. As such, please do pay attention to this paragraph and provide criticism and tweaks to this, I plan to use the same explanatory paragraph in other AFL team nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The team has (singular), since 1973, played their (plural) home games"
  • "Then, teams agreed" - I think "Teams then agreed" would read more elegantly
  • " one of whom, Carl Eller" => " one of these, Carl Eller" ("one of whom" doesn't work given that the semi-colon started a new clause)
  • "The Bills used an addition two first-round picks" - presumably that should say additional?
  • "First-round was territorial selections" - no need for that hyphen
  • That's what I got - great work as ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review @ChrisTheDude! I've made all the changes you suggested and checked my other WIPs for similar issues :) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review

  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Alt text included
  • Captions are relevant and no MOS issues.
  • Pass for image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14

  • All-America Football Conference (AAFC) -- I believe we only use the parenthetical with the acronyms if it is repeated in the rest of the article. I think this can be dropped, as AAFC is only used in the first instance.
  • Same with AFC
  • (with each of the eight teams receiving one of those players) -- I think this can be written as a statement instead of being in enclosures.
  • That's all from me on the lead. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review @Pseud 14! I was focused on a standard lead so much I missed that I defined acronyms I didn't even re-use, woops! I've made changes that I believe address all of your comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Support on prose. Btw, if you have time and interest would appreciate a prose review on my current FLC. Hope all is well. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support from Queen of Hearts

Hey man ill get to this soon. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 23:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  • "The Bills' name is derived from an All-America Football Conference franchise from Buffalo..." - All-America Football Conference franchise from Buffalo is a sea of blue; I'd unlink All-America Football Conference
  • Same quote, I'd say "The Bills' name is derived from a Buffalo All-America Football Conference franchise" to avoid a double "from"
  • "... the Bills chose Utah tight end Dalton Kincaid..." - another SOB; I'd unlink tight end

I think that's it — great work as always. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review @Queen of Hearts, I appreciate it! I'm not sure there's anything in that first sea of blue that I'm comfortable unlinking, as I think it's relevant to link the AAFC as they were a competitor to the league at one point. I've tried to reword this, but I'm having difficulty in doing so. Sea of blue mentions when possibly, but I'm thinking this is a case where it's not an improvement to do so. I'll keep thinking about how to possibly reword it and keep the flow good. I also think the suggestion for the replacement quote would either also be a SOB or would force me to unlink either the AAFC or the team that the Bills are named after.
Unfortunately, I also don't think it's useful to unlink tight end in the Dalton Kinkaid mention, as this is the format that's used across a number of first-pick lists. It's also the first mention of the position and the cleanest way to list the pick Hey man im josh (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Queen of Hearts: Just following up on this. How strongly do you feel about this? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: very sorry for the delay. I don't feel very strongly about it; SOB does say "when possible" after all. Your explanations sound reasonable; still happy to support. DD (main account | talk) 06:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review

(Disclaimer: I saw a general request for a review on the Wikimedia Discord server)

  • Are we certain that team names and organizations should use the website parameter instead of the publisher? I think it fits better to have the NFL and HOF listed as publishers; for the NFL specifically, NFL.com would also be suitable for the work/website parameter.
  • Citation 6 needs its publication date.
  • Rebel Nation Magazine seems to be an alumni publication, which are generally not regarded as good sources and verge on unreliable.
  • Citation
  • Diario AS's English version isn't a high-quality source, so if possible I would like to see a replacement for Citation 13.
  • Citation 35 uses The New York Times, while citation 44 just uses New York Times; I think it'd be best to add The for the NY Times and Washington Post to remain consistent with some of the other newspaper names here. I also think we can replace the "subscription required" part of the citation with "limited access" given that's what nytimes.com usually provides for older articles.
  • Citation 42 is missing its title, author, and agency information.
  • Citation 43's title does not match the article title in the source.
  • Citation 45 should use a location parameter, as The Times by itself implies the London publication.
  • Citations 52 and 59 should use the publisher or agency field for UPI.

That's all I got. SounderBruce 06:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review @SounderBruce!
  • Are we certain that team names and organizations should use the website parameter instead of the publisher? I think it fits better to have the NFL and HOF listed as publishers; for the NFL specifically, NFL.com would also be suitable for the work/website parameter. – I guess I'm not sure on this one. I don't really see a good reason in some of these, especially for the HoF, to change it to publisher. I'm open to it, but perhaps I'm not understanding why it makes more sense in this context.
  • I simply see it as good housekeeping, but upon a further read of the CS1 guide, it seems to not be necessary. I won't hold up the nomination over whether or not the text is italicized here.
  • Citation 6 – Does not have a publish date
  • Whoops, I assumed that all ESPN articles had a visible publication date. Looks like the source code also doesn't have a definitive one.
  • Rebel Nation Magazine – This ref is only meant to verify that he didn't play for the Buffalo Bills, which can mostly only be gleamed from database sources at the moment, but it's difficult to find a source that states it outright. I looked for sources that would outright state that he never played for the Bills, but I'm not finding anything outside of sources from Ole Miss. Possibly not a much better source, but I replaced this entry with one from Ole Miss Athletics. Is that adequate given the context?
  • This newspaper article in the Democrat and Chronicle seems to be a good replacement that states Dennis's situation outright.
  • Diario AS's English version isn't a high-quality source, so if possible I would like to see a replacement for Citation 13. – Ultimately this was the best available source I could find that was able to verify the text of "... which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment." Other sites say it in different ways and, if you follow the NFL at all, it's obvious that the draft is the primary method of recruiting players but other sites don't outright state it as such. I think, contextually speaking, it should be adequate for the information it's verifying, but I can keep working at it if the source isn't suitable in your opinion.
  • Did a little search myself and didn't find anything better than AS, so it should be fine. I did find this interesting piece from The Guardian that could be useful if you decide to add the history of the draft
  • Citation 35... – D'oh, fixed! THE New York Times is now consistent and I added "The" before "Washington Post". I have removed the subscription needed aspect for the two NY Times articles, as they aren't actually prompting me for a subscription when accessing them.
  • Citation 42 – Added title and agency. No author listed for that portion of the paper.
  • Citation 43 – So, the snipped part for the source is actually two lists side by side. Not sure what to do with this one since I can't match the names of both. Do you have a recommendation on the title I should be using for this? Or do you think I unfortunately need to do two separate snips instead?
  • I think it would be best to use two clippings and two citations (or a bundle).
  • Citation 45 – I've added the location parameter.
  • Citations 52 and 59 – Updated to publisher
Thanks again for the review, I hope I've addressed all of your feedback and I look forward to your response. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Just a few more comments. This list looks great. SounderBruce 04:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: Thanks for the further feedback!
  • Rebel Nation Magazine bit – I've snipped that article and used it to replace the reference I used to replace this reference, thank you for this find!
  • AS source – I have a pile of references I might use some day if I do decide to expand, which I've added this to, so thank you for this one as well!
  • Citation 43 – I've replaced this. On review, I actually didn't need the second part of the snip, though I did personally find it useful as a summary point. Never the less, its inclusion doesn't necessarily improve anything.
Thanks again, I think my referencing will improve based on our back and forth moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Source review passed. SounderBruce 06:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Support by Gonzo_fan2007

  • The Bills have held the first overall pick five times, four times in the NFL draft and once in the AFL draft, and selected Ken Rice in 1961, O. J. Simpson in 1969, Walt Patulski in 1972, Tom Cousineau in 1979, and Bruce Smith in 1985. - sort of a run-on sentence. Recommend cutting it into 2 sentence after "AFL draft".
  • What is the necessity of highlighting the first overall pick? The "Pick" column clearly states this already.
  • File:Ed oliver.jpg would be a nice, more recent pick that could be added.

That's all I got. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  • It is, I had that concern too actually. I've split the sentence into two, do you think this is adequate or do think it needs further refinement?
  • Being drafted first overall is quite significant to the point that I believe drawing attention to it is a relevant and interesting thing to include. For instance, List of first overall National Football League draft picks is at over 25 thousand views in the last 30 days whereas the highest views for the series of first-round pick articles is the Chicago Bears (4,337 views), San Francisco 49ers (3,983 views), and Kansas City Chiefs (3,497 views)/
  • Re: Ed Oliver – That's a good image, but I try to include the most notable players on these lists and I'm not sure that Ed Oliver makes the cut given his lack of accolades. Really I'd have preferred an image of Joe DeLamielleure, but no images available for him. Do you think it needs another image?
Thank you very much for the review @Gonzo fan2007! I always appreciate your insight and views on the lists I work to promote =) Hey man im josh (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The sentence looks good now. I don't disagree that being #1 is important, but that is already information provided in the table (and linked too). This article is about their draft picks, so you would assume the reader already understands the table and what "1" means in the "Pick" column. It just comes across as repetitive. I think one more photo, of someone more recent, would look good. Ed Oliver may not be full of accolades, but he was a high draft picks who played out his rookie contract and got an extension. Likely means he is going to play for them for at least 6 or 7 seasons, if not longer. The photo is a recommendation, as well as the highlighting. Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 15:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [18].

List of New England Patriots first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is my 5th nomination in the NFL team's first-round picks series and I hope for it to be the 25th list in the series promoted. This is also my second nomination of an AFL team (the first being the Buffalo Bills) and, of the 9 lists I've nominated / prepared for nomination (I've got another 3 ready to nominate), this has the second most notes (to List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks), which I found interesting for a team that's only been drafting since 1960.

I will, as always, do my best to respond quickly and address all comments, questions, and criticisms. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The Patriots played their home games at various stadiums throughout Boston, including Fenway Park from 1963 to 1969 until" => "The Patriots played their home games at various stadiums throughout Boston, including Fenway Park from 1963 to 1969, until"
  • In the 2016 row there's a space in "Pick forfeited [AL]", unlike in the other rows
  • Maybe "as punishment for Deflategate" should be "as punishment for the Deflategate scandal".....?
  • That's all I got. You're certainly in a high-quality groove with these lists! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you so much for the feedback and kind words @ChrisTheDude! Gonna need to find a new set of lists once I'm done with these runs :P Hey man im josh (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
    Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
MPGuy2824's comments
  • Lead image caption: " was the most recent Patriots player to be the drafted first overall." should probably be "to be drafted first overall" or "to be the first overall draft pick". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Using multi-column rows in tables ("Boston Patriots (1960–1970)" and "New England Patriots (1971–present)") really messes with their sortability. If I remember right you are supposed to add that info as a multi-row column. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    @MPGuy2824: Thank you for taking a look at the article. The lead image caption you mentioned was definitely a mistake, which I've now fixed. Are you having issues with the sortability? I added a parameter to automatically sort the New England Patriots and Boston Patriots rows to the top when someone tried to sort a column. From what I understand this is normal and appropriate behaviour with sorting, similar to how the "No pick" rows automatically get sorted as a 0 value. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    MOS:COLHEAD was what I was referring to. But, if the way you've done it is the current FL norm, then maybe we should look into updating the MOS? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    Interesting, this hasn't been brought up to me before @MPGuy2824, and this isn't the first list I've included this type of split in. I think the problem is that I wanted to differentiate between the seasons under the two names, but I also want to keep the table sortable and combined. I'll go ahead and remove it Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support LGTM -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Dylan620
  • Pleased to see my home team at FLC! I'll try to get an image review done ASAP. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks good for the most part. The images add encyclopedic value and are positioned well; the captions are generally well-written and the alt text is sufficiently descriptive. Licensing checks out. A couple of the images had dead links for sources, so I took the liberty of heading to Commons and replacing the dead URLs with Wayback Machine archives. There are a couple things that need to be addressed before I can outright support on images:
    • During that time [Wilfork] was five-time All-Pro and five-time Pro Bowler. – according to the source, he was only All-Pro once. (An "a" would help this flow more smoothly as well.)
    • The above "during" clause, as well as During [Bledsoe's] nine seasons with the team, should be followed with commas
  • Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Dylan620: Thank you for the review! I definitely missed the "a" in Wilfork's blurb, I've fixed that. As for the Bledsoe blurb, I've reworded it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Hey man im josh: No prob! I'm satisfied with the Bledsoe change, but there still remains the issue of the Wilfork caption not quite matching the source – specifically, the caption states that he was a five-time All-Pro, but according to the Pro-Football-Reference.com page used as a source, Wilfork was a one-time All-Pro. (I also still believe that a comma should be present after During that time, although I wonder if that may just be stylistic preference.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Dylan620: Oops, sorry, missed replying to that part of your comment. I understand why you're saying that about the five-time All-Pro part, it's because of the badge at the top right of the page. That badge only refers to Associated Press first-team All-Pro selections, whereas the Pro Football Hall of Fame recognizes a number of selectors. If you scroll down on the source linked you'll see an All-Pro Teams section which shows entries for five separate years. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Hey man im josh: Ahhhhh I see that now, my bad! Issues resolved/clarified; support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Queen of Hearts

Review coming sometime in the next three and a half hours. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 20:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Queen of Hearts, not sure if you're still interest in providing a review, but I thought I'd send a ping in case you were. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
No pressure at all @Queen of Hearts, but I just wanted to ping you again about this. I'll assume you're no longer intending to complete a review if I don't hear back from you again soon. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh, sorry, no, I don't intend on reviewing this. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
No problem at all, just wanted to confirm :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Source review by Gonzo_fan2007
  • Refs #3 and #32: bypass the redirect of New England Patriots Hall of Fame to New England Patriots#Patriots Hall of Fame
  • Refs #20, #24, #36, #39, and #41 should include page number, which is readily provided on the digital recreation of the actual newspaper clipping.
  • Ref #38: I would bypass the redirect of MassLive
  • Ref #61: can you find a more reliable source? Grantland is a blog, and I can see justifications about the person writing the article is a SME but this also seems like an easy one to replace with a better source.
  • Ref 33: Yardbarker isn't linked. Similar to the above, any possibility of a better source? Yardbarker appears to curate articles? Is this article from another publisher?
  • All other sources appear to be consistently formatted and archived, where necessary.
  • Spot checks showed accurate citing of the material in the article.

That's all I got. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I've made all the suggested changes, including replacing the two sources. I hadn't noticed that about The New York Times sources, I'll have to go back and check to make sure it's included in other lists I've promoted. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Support - Source Review Passed « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 21:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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) 12:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [19].

List of Dallas Cowboys first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is my 6th in the NFL team's first-round picks series and, if all goes well, it'll be the 26th list in the series promoted. I will, as always, do my best to respond quickly and address all comments, questions, and criticisms. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

  • team based in Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex. -- based in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex
  • defensive tackle from TCU -- perhaps the university name and the team name should be written in full on this instance.
  • Suggest alt text to File:Super Bowl 44 Emmitt Smith image.
  • That's all from me. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
    Great feedback @Pseud 14! I've implemented all of your suggestions. Thank you very much for the review =) Hey man im josh (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "have played their home games at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, since 2009" - don't think that comma is needed
  • "Dallas traded their 2008 first-, fifth, and seventh-round selections" - shouldn't there by a hyphen after "fifth" as well?
  • That's all I got! Great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
    • "have played their home games at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, since 2009" - don't think that comma is needed – Wouldn't WP:GEOCOMMA apply?
      • Apparently it would. This is a new one on me but then of course I am British and we don't have an equivalent to writing "X has done Y in Arlington, Texas, since [date]" because we don't have states...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
    • "Dallas traded their 2008 first-, fifth, and seventh-round selections" - shouldn't there by a hyphen after "fifth" as well? – Good catch, fixed and found another instance of this mistake as well. Did a ctrl+F to try to find any other similar mistakes and I think we're good now.
    Thanks so much for the review @ChrisTheDude! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

Gotta hand it to you Josh, you've been an absolute machine with these first-round draft pick lists. I should have an image review done in the next couple days! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I've already got another 3 prepped and should be finished the last 3 in the series by the end of the week :P Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Goodness, that is seriously impressive – talk about planning ahead! Image review passes, details below:
  • All images present are licensed either CC or PD. I wasn't able to access the original Flickr upload for the Irvin photo, but the Commons editor who confirmed the license is one whose judgment I trust, so I am going to AGF.
  • All images have suitable alt text. It might not hurt to mention in Aikman's alt text that he is wearing a suit since such is mentioned in the alt text for Smith's photo, and roughly equal amounts of their suits are shown in frame, but that's a minor point.
  • All images are high-quality and contribute encyclopedic value. I like that White is shown wearing a cowboy hat – it's only fitting!
  • All captions are well-written, and the sources verify the information that they're used to cite.
Support on images; excellent work again! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Noting that I've seen the Parsons photo that was added after this review, and it also ticks all of the above boxes. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Source review (Passed)
  • Not source related, but Note R says for their 1993 fourth-, eighth, and two second-round selections, which is sort of confusing. What were the fourth and eighth picks? Also are you missing a dash after eighth?
  • Not source related, but consider adding one more photo of a recent draft pick? Micah Parsons or CeeDee Lamb maybe?
  • Ref 41: what makes Inside the Star reliable? It is a blog, right?
  • Otherwise, all sources appear reliable, are consistently formatted and all spot checks looked good. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Gonzo fan2007:
    • I was missing a dash. This particular trade included two second-round picks, which made it difficult to word and I tried to dance around it.
    • Recommend rewording, it still doesn't make much sense. Maybe to the Green Bay Packers in exchange for both of their 1993 second-round selections, as well as a fourth- and eighth-round selection in the same year (Nos. 46, 54, 94, and 213 overall).
    • Added Parsons
    • Removed, apparently ref 41 was redundant after looking into it.
    Thank you very much for the review! Hey man im josh (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    One other comment: List of Dallas Cowboys seasons seems superfluous in the See also section. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    I've reworded it again, based on your feedback. I do personally think that the list of seasons is relevant to the list of picks, as each season determines the picks that teams will have in the very next season, but I recognize that not everybody feels the same way. For now, I feel as though it's harmless if not potentially beneficial for some. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    Support, source review passed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 01:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [20].

List of Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This will be list #7 for me in this series and, provided all goes well, #27 in the series to be promoted. Nothing really different about this list, continues on using the same format as the other first-round pick lists that I've nominated. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "where they've played their home games since" => "where they have played their home games since"
  • I would merge the two short paragraphs at the end of the lead together
  • "The Titans used an addition first-round pick" => "The Titans used an additional first-round pick"
  • On that note, there's only one pick listed for 1966 in the table, so why was it "additional"?
  • That's it, I think. Great work once again!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you so much for the review @ChrisTheDude!
    • Example text – Fixed
    • I would merge the two short paragraphs at the end of the lead together – I'm torn on this. These paragraphs are broken up the same way in the other lists that I've worked on and I'd like them to be consistent.
    • Example text – Done.
    • On that note, there's only one pick listed for 1966 in the table, so why was it "additional"? – It's meant to continue off of the point of the previous sentence, in that, a first-round selection that was chosen by the team actually chose to sign elsewhere. I've added a couple commas that I hope make this slightly clearer.
    Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    • On the last point, I would simplify it to "The team's first-round pick in 1966, Tommy Nobis, also chose to sign with the NFL instead". Currently the use of the word "additional" implies that they had more than one pick in 1966 (a "main" one and then an "additional" one - does that make sense?) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
      That's much better wording, thank you for the suggestion @ChrisTheDude. Fixed now. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

  • The Titans compete in the National Football League (NFL) -- add the parenthetical after the full name, as it is used in many instances after
  • The Titans have selected first overall twice, selecting John Matuszak in 1973 -- just a suggestion, so selected .. selecting doesn't sound repetitive, perhaps an alternate wording for either.
  • That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have captions and are relevant. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback and review @Pseud 14! I've made the appropriate changes :) Hey man im josh (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Support. Another great list. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

DBC OlifanofmrTennant

Ref 48 lists SB nation and Gang Green Nation seperatly as publisher and work/website this is the only citation which does so. Additionally this seems to be a blog site. The about page is just a list of writers. SB nation is a blog hosting network so is this source reliable? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey @OlifanofmrTennant, I could have technically listed Gang Green Nation under Vox Media, but thought SB Nation was more appropriate. I did that because it quite clearly advertises itself as a subcommunity of SB Nation. As for the reliability of SB Nation and its subsites, it was discussed most recently here in 2023, and the result was no consensus. Despite it including "Blog" in its name, it's actually a widely used sports news site. Given what was being verified, and that it wasn't the only source used to help verify said fact, it should be an adequate source. Never the less, I've replaced it with two others. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Just following up to make sure all feedback has been adequately addressed @OlifanofmrTennant. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

  • , who remained the owner until his death in 2013,, the commas make this a complicated sentence. Maybe mdashes or parentheses would work better?
  • For those two seasons, the team was known as the Tennessee Oilers, but changed its name to the Tennessee Titans for the 1999 season, when they moved into Adelphia Coliseum, now known as Nissan Stadium, where they have played their home games since. split this up, run-on sentence
  • he was the team's territorial selection maybe a brief explanation of what this means?
  • joined the NFL instead -> joined the Chicago Bears of the NFL instead
  • The notes in the 1965 and 2022 rows have periods at the end of the sentences, while the rest of the notes do not. Can you rephrase these two to not be two sentences and thus not have the periods.

That's all I got hey man im josh. Nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  • , who remained the owner until his death in 2013,, the commas make this a complicated sentence. Maybe mdashes or parentheses would work better? – I put a portion of that in brackets now, let me know what you think.
  • For those two seasons, the team was known as the Tennessee Oilers, but changed its name to the Tennessee Titans for the 1999 season, when they moved into Adelphia Coliseum, now known as Nissan Stadium, where they have played their home games since. split this up, run-on sentence – Yeah, wow, is it ever, eh? I've made some changes, let me know if you think it's decent now.
  • he was the team's territorial selection maybe a brief explanation of what this means? – I included an explanation of the territorial picks in the paragraph above that which I believe/hope is adequete. Let me know if it's not and I'll see what more I can do.
  • joined the NFL instead -> joined the Chicago Bears of the NFL instead – Good suggestion, done.
  • The notes in the 1965 and 2022 rows have periods at the end of the sentences, while the rest of the notes do not. Can you rephrase these two to not be two sentences and thus not have the periods. – I've used this format across all of the first-round picks. I've added full stops in cases where I didn't feel it flowed well to combine what were essentially two separate and unrelated notes. I'm not sure there's a good way to refactor these in a way that I could apply to all of the lists. I'm not opposed to utilizing a different format, I'd just prefer to do so in a way that can be applied across all of these articles.
Thanks so much for taking a look @Gonzo fan2007! I very much appreciate the feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Support, good job! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Harper J. Cole

  • The picture of Earl Campbell is rather blurry. There's a clearer one on his article.
  • Typo on "running back" immediately after that picture.
  • The first mention of retired numbers could link to that section of the Titans' page.
  • Likewise for Titans Ring of Honor.
  • I don't know whether there's a Wikipedia convention for this, but I find it a bit counter-intuitive that the team are referred to as Tennessee in the trade notes from 1960-1996 (they were Houston when they made the trades). I know that humans who have changed their names are referred to by the current one throughout an article, but I don't remember seeing that for an organisation, and articles such as 1960 Houston Oilers season use the name from that time.
  • Similarly, the table could be titled "Houston Oilers / Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks"
  • allowed them to select a single player within a designated region and teams were allowed to select a single player from a designated region Did the Oilers make the selection themselves, or was is collectively decided by all eight owners? The source seems a little unclear, saying "they were unanimously agreed upon by the other teams" but also "Billy Cannon who was selected by the Houston Oilers with their territorial pick". Perhaps the article should reflect this ambiguity?
  • Tennessee loaned quarterback Jacky Lee to the Denver Broncos (for the 1964 and 1965 seasons) in exchange for their 1965 first-round selection (No. 2 overall), defensive tackle Bud McFadin, and cash. The term "cash" seems a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Would recommend giving the exact amount, or else "an unspecified sum of money" if it's unknown.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The picture of Earl Campbell is rather blurry. There's a clearer one on his article. – Yeah I went back and forth on which to include. I do think you're right that it's better to use that one. Switched.
  • Typo on "running back" immediately after that picture. – That's embarrassing. Fixed.
  • The first mention of retired numbers could link to that section of the Titans' page. – I've added some links.
  • Likewise for Titans Ring of Honor. – I've added some links.
  • I don't know whether there's a Wikipedia convention for this, but I find it a bit counter-intuitive that the team are referred to as Tennessee in the trade notes from 1960-1996 – I get exactly where you're coming from on this. I've worked on 12 of these lists and I've internally battled about what fits best for other articles as well, such as the Cardinals and Patriots. I've approached it from the perspective of the reader, and from a point of view that we're referring to the team as a whole, not necessarily their name at the time. I'm open to rewriting these, but I'm not sure of the best way to do so while making it easy for readers to follow. Do you have any suggestions?
  • Similarly, the table could be titled "Houston Oilers / Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks" – In that case we'd want to name all three names they'd gone by I imagine. I'd like to hear your answer to my above response before I implement this. I only want to wait because I'm considering how/if I should implement this change across all of the relevant pages I've worked on in this series.
  • Did the Oilers make the selection themselves, or was is collectively decided by all eight owners? The source seems a little unclear, saying "they were unanimously agreed upon by the other teams" but also "Billy Cannon who was selected by the Houston Oilers with their territorial pick". Perhaps the article should reflect this ambiguity? – So, those are actually two separate statements. The idea is that each team got to select whatever player they wanted within their region before the next phase of the draft started. After that phase of the draft, the territorial selections, teams agreed upon the top 8 players at each position, which were then randomly assigned to teams. So each time agreed on who the best players were at positions and randomly got one. The only selection ACTUALLY made by any team during the 1960 AFL draft was their territorial selection, the rest were randomly assigned to them after sort of "tiers" were decided upon.
  • The term "cash" seems a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Would recommend giving the exact amount, or else "an unspecified sum of money" if it's unknown. – I went based on the language that the Broncos used, but that's a fair criticism. I've changed it to "an unspecified sum of money".
Thank you for taking the time to review this nomination @Harper J. Cole:, I appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • With regard to the territorial picks, I'm still not entirely sure. The phrase "unanimously agreed upon" does appear to be referring to the regional picks rather than the general lottery that followed it. Still, the latter sentence is so explicit in saying that he was selected "by the Oilers" I can't object if you're personally satisfied. There don't seem to be any other reliable online sources to shed further light.
  • With regard to the trade notes, you can get around it for the Cardinals and Patriots by referring to them by their nicknames, but that doesn't work in this case. I can see four options.
  1. The current style, with "Tennessee" used throughout.
  2. Use "Tennessee", but add an explanatory note each time from 1960-96
  3. Use "Tennessee", but add a single explanatory note, perhaps on the table title.
  4. Use "Houston" for 1960-96.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@Harper J. Cole:
  • With regard to the territorial picks, I'm still not entirely sure. The phrase "unanimously agreed upon" does appear to be referring to the regional picks rather than the general lottery that followed it. Still, the latter sentence is so explicit in saying that he was selected "by the Oilers" I can't object if you're personally satisfied. There don't seem to be any other reliable online sources to shed further light. – I'll mull this over a bit, look over what I might have stashed away in a folder of possibly useful bookmarks, and see if I can figure out some better wording.
  • With regard to the trade notes, you can get around it for the Cardinals and Patriots by referring to them by their nicknames – I could use the nickname for the Cardinals and Patriots, but I'm trying to apply the same formatting and style to all of these lists that I've worked on. As you said though, this wouldn't work for this list (or the KC list).
  • I think, if I were to go the route of changing the styling, I'd probably lean towards option 3. I do make the point of identifying that the team changed names in the lead, but I also recognize that adding a note can still improve the article and make things more clear than they currently are. I'll give this a bit of thought and send you a ping tomorrow for you to review.
Thanks again for taking the time on this! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@Harper J. Cole:
Current: The first AFL draft was held prior to the start of the 1960 season. To start the 1960 AFL draft, each team received a "territorial pick" which allowed them to select a single player within a designated region (the team's "territory"). Teams then agreed on the top eight players at each position, who were subsequently assigned to teams by random draw, with each of the eight teams receiving one of those players, and repeated the process until all 53 roster spots were filled.
Proposed: The first AFL draft was held prior to the start of the 1960 season. The first round of the 1960 AFL draft was territorial selections. Each team received a "territorial pick" which allowed them to select a single player within a pre-agreed upon designated region (the team's "territory"). Teams then agreed on the top eight players at each position, who were subsequently assigned to teams by random draw, with each of the eight teams receiving one of those players. This process was repeated until all 53 roster spots were filled.
Do you think that's more clear, easy to digest, and understandable?
As for the table title, I think it'd be rather janky if I went with "Houston / Tennessee Oilers / Titans first-round picks". Do you think a note stating "Previously known as the Houston Oilers (1960–1996) and Tennessee Oilers (1997–1998)." next to the table title would be adequate? Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh Yes, I think both those are fine. That gives ample opportunities for readers to understand the situation, even if they skip over the intro and go straight to the table. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Harper J. Cole: All of the changes have been made. I think/hope I've addressed all of your helpful feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh Thanks—Supported --Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [21].

List of Arizona Cardinals first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This will be list #8 for me in this series and, hopefully, #28 in the series to be promoted. One of the charter members of the NFL and the oldest continuously run professional football franchise, this most resembles and copies the format of my previous nominations of List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks (a fellow charter member and second oldest franchise) and List of Detroit Lions first-round draft picks (fifth oldest franchise). As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

  • In 1960, the team moved to St. Louis -- I think it would be better to write (and link) as St. Louis, Missouri
  • From 1947 through 1958 the NFL designated -- comma after 1958
  • In the table notes: Pick used in 1989 supplemental draft. -- I would remove the period
  • That's all from me. Solid work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed in Commons
  • Images are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I've implemented all of your suggestions. Thanks so much for taking the time to review and provide feedback @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The team was established [...] and are the" => "The team was established [...] and is the", surely?
  • "where they've played their home games since" => "where they have played their home games since"
  • Jimmy Lawrence's name is spelt incorrectly in the lead
  • Lottery is spelt incorrectly on the 1958 row
  • "Arizona received the Washington Redskins's 1977 first-round" => "Arizona received the Washington Redskins' 1977 first-round"
  • That's it. Great work as ever, Josh!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the feedback @ChrisTheDude! I've made the suggested changes and boy do I feel silly about the lottery and "Redskins's" one! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


Source review

I will taking ref numbers from this revision [22]. At first glance all refs seem to be from relaible sources. I'll begin manually checking themQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  1. Good
  2. Good
  3. Good
  4. Good
  5. Good
  6. Good
  7. Good
  8. Good
  9. Good
  10. Good
  11. Good
  12. Good
  13. Good
  14. Good
  15. Good
  16. Good
  17. Good
  18. Good
  19. Good
  20. Good
  21. Good
  22. Good
  23. Good
  24. Good
  25. Good
  26. Good
  27. Good
  28. Good
  29. Good
  30. Good
  31. Good
  32. Good
  33. Good
  34. Good
  35. Good
  36. Good
  37. Good
  38. Good
  39. Good
  40. Good
  41. Good
  42. Good
  43. Good
  44. Good
  45. Good
  46. Good
  47. Good
  48. Good
  49. Good
  50. Good Consider archiving
  51. Good
  52. Good
  53. Good
  54. Good
  55. Good
  56. Good
  57. Good
  58. Good
  59. Good
  60. Don't have a Washington Post subscription I'll have to check the WP:LIBRARY. Regardless consider archiving it
  61. Good
  62. Good. Consider archiving
  63. Good
  64. Good
  65. Good
  66. Good
  67. So I ran out of free articles while checking. So I'll have to check the library again
  68. I initially thought that this was a tabloid sun but unrelated so good. Consider archiving it
  69. Good
  70. Good
  71. Good
  72. Good
  73. Good
  74. Good

Good job on this. I'll try and get access to those sources I dont have to finish the review. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the very thorough review @OlifanofmrTennant. All references are archived, including reference 67, which should allow you to view the source if you go to the archived version. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey @OlifanofmrTennant: Just wanted to confirm whether the source review has been passed or not. As mentioned, all sources should be accessible to you via archive links now. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Support Sorry totally missed you first ping, but yes pass. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 12:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [23].

List of Las Vegas Raiders first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, getting close to finally wrapping up the first-round pick series. This list is nomination #9 in the series for me and, pending its promotion, would be #29 in the series to be promoted. This nomination's format matches that of other AFL team lists I've helped to promote, such as the Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

I've been curious about reviewing one of these sports-related lists for a while now. Saving a spot for later. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to review my nomination @TechnoSquirrel69! For future reference though, it's unnecessary to reserve/save a spot. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware, I just like to put my name down to commit myself to it and to let you know you have a review coming. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69: Just following up on this since it's been a couple of weeks. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, Josh, this review just got swept up with a lot of other things that have been keeping me busy for the last week. I'm hoping to get some comments in for you before next weekend with a source review to boot. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Truthfully I'm hoping to have a source review before then. This is why it's generally best not to "reserve" review spots. It puts us in a weird limbo if someone else provides one and I have enough reviews for promotion but am waiting on a review from someone who's reserved a spot. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Source review

Citation numbers from this revision.

  • In citations 6 and 10: change hyphens (-) to en dashes (–).
  • In citation 23: AP News → Associated Press
  • What makes the Daily Norseman a reliable source? It seems to be just like any other blog hosted on SB Nation, and its staff page indicates no editorial oversight.
  • A few random spot-checks did not turn up any issues.

Let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Thank you for the source review. I've fixed citations 6 and 10. Is there any reason why I should be changing AP News to Associated Press? My understanding is they are under the same umbrella, but it's more accurate to list the source as AP News instead of Associated Press to slightly differentiate the source (department). The Daily Norseman is nothing special in terms of reliability, but it's about the only one that has outright stated that Hackbart signed with the Green Bay Packers instead of the Raiders. For the factoid that it's verifying, I do believe it's reliable enough. The alternative would be to piece together a number of sources which show that he clearly played for the Packers instead of the Raiders, but that's not quite the same or as clear cut as showing that in text. There isn't inherently anything that makes the source unreliable, and if it were a more contested fact I'd probably go through the effort of utilizing 5+ sources to get that specific bit verified, but, given the weight of the statement, I do believe the source is adequate. This link shows he was drafted by the Packers and Raiders, it shows stats in the 1960 season for Hackbart playing for the Packers, but it doesn't outright state that he signed for the Packers instead whereas the other source does. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
If there's a meaningful difference between using "AP News" rather than "Associated Press", as you've done in other citations, then it can be kept as is. As for the Daily Norseman, I'm inclined to assess it as an unreliable self-published source unless there's a reason to believe otherwise, such as the author being a widely-recognized expert, or the publication being cited in other reliable sources. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69: I'd be more inclined to assess the source as WP:NEWSBLOG. This is an official subfork of SB Nation, albeit with lesser oversight, and doesn't quite the fit the definition of a group blog. I spent hours looking for a statement about Hackbart signing with the Packers over Oakland, but it's been impossible to find. The alternative is WP:SYNTH of sources in a way that leaves a gap and forces us to make assumptions. The only other possible source I've found, which I've just now realized MIGHT be appropriate, is this. It's confusing, because it essentially lists two authors, but one of them is listed as a team historian (Jerry Knaak), while the other (David Griffin) is listed on the Raiders' front office roster. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment, and prior discussions here and here indicate other editors are also less than impressed by SB Nation blogs, especially if they lack editorial oversight. The link you shared is also not an ideal source, but I'd be willing to accept it to verify the statements in the article currently citing the Daily Norseman. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69: As always, context is key, and not all sub sites of SB Nation are considered unreliable. In fact, the Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide points to there being no consensus on the sub sites of SB Nation. There's nothing to suggest the information, and the weight of the information being verified (non-controversial) in the source is incorrect. There's simply no other sources in the hours I've searched that states the same thing, the article is not improved by removing that fact, and we don't currently have a reason to believe the source might be wrong. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I've said everything I have to say about the reliability of the Daily Norseman. I'd also like to remind you of the verifiability, not truth principle; unreliable sources are no more acceptable in cases where "we don't currently have a reason to believe the source might be wrong" than any other. I'm not advocating for removing that content from the article, just the replacement of the source. Why not incorporate Jerry Knaak's article you shared above instead? As far as I can see, it verifies the same information and is something I'm inclined to assess as a primary source in the same vein as articles coming from the Raiders' website considering the contributors' histories. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69: This has not been defined as an unreliable source, that's the issue. You believe it to be unreliable, I do not, that's the crux of the disagreement. This is being evaluated as if it's a controversial fact, but the weight of the information being verified is relevant when evaluating sources, and the weight of this statement is miniscule. I was hesitant to add the second source because Exposure.co is for making visual stories, which doesn't scream reliable source, and, frankly, we have no verification that that is the person they're claiming to be. It's not linked from the Raiders website anywhere I can, so that doesn't help. Never the less, I've gone ahead and added the source, despite disagreeing with the weight of the sources. I did not remove the Daily Norseman reference and see no reason to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure; given that there's no consensus in the community or between the two of us on this source, that's probably the best compromise we can come to. Source review passed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Passing comment

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I missed this comment, but I've addressed this in all 12 of the lists in this series that I've worked on. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Fixed it on 12 more articles in the series as well. Every list in the series now properly links to the Pro Football Hall of Fame instead of the list of inductees. Just gonna ping you so you know this is done @TechnoSquirrel69. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "He he nine seasons" (in photo caption)
  • "The team departed Oakland to play in Los Angeles from the 1982 season through the 1994 season, becoming the "Los Angeles Raiders" during this time" - I would lose the last three words, as they could be taken to mean that they changed their name at some (unspecified) point in the middle of that 12-year period, rather than at the start
  • "The team has [singular] played their [plural]"
  • That's it, I think! Great work as ever, Josh! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review @ChrisTheDude! I've made changes based on your always valuable feedback :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

  • Founded on January 30, 1960, as the Oakland Raiders -- Possibly worth linking their old names Oakland Raiders and Los Angeles Raiders, as seeing they have wiki articles.
  • I also don't think you need to put their old names in quotations.
  • Oakland -- I would also link this, since you have linked Los Angeles.
  • Nothing else to quibble. Solid work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed.
  • Images are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the review @Pseud 14! I've made changes based on your feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

  • Wikilink "wide receiver" and "return specialist" in the lead image's caption.
  • The note for Fabian Washington is missing a period after "Vikings".

That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Good catches, I've made the appropriate changes. Thanks @MPGuy2824! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

  • This led to a massive bidding war over top prospects between the two leagues, "massive" comes across as a bit MOS:PUFFERY. I don't see that wording used in the sources. I think "bidding war" alone conveys what is needed.
  • ; he was the team's territorial selection. - recommend wrapping in parenthesis instead. This is somewhat of an afterthought/addition and makes a bit more sense instead of a semi-colon.

Neither of those issues withhold my support. Nice work Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review @Gonzo fan2007! I've removed the word "massive" from the 5 relevant AFL first-round pick articles I've worked on, this one included of course. As for the parenthesis, I'll give it some though, but I won't implement it at this time. I'd like to keep it consistent across the series and I want to mull it over whether it's better that way or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [24].

List of Kansas City Chiefs first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This list is nomination #10 for me in the series and, hopefully, will end up being #30 in the series to be promoted. Only two more nominations after this one and the 32-team series of first-round draft picks will be complete! This nomination's format matches that of other AFL team lists I've helped to promote, Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk)

Pseud 14

  • Don Meredith, a quarterback out of SMU - Perhaps expand the name of the college in full and then bracket it.
  • That's all I could find. Great work as ever! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed. AGF on self-published images.
  • Images used are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for the review and helpful feedback @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - I got nothing. Brilliant work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


Source review

Footnotes:

  • Second use of "sixth-" in Footnote R is missing a hyphen.
  • Footnote X ends with a double period ("Jr.."), I think only one is necessary but couldn't find it in the MOS. Update: found it at MOS:CONSECUTIVE.
  • Footnote D may have a factual error. Source 44 says that the pick "turned out to be Mo Moorman", but the table lists Moorman as the Chiefs' own pick and George Daney as the pick traded from the Oilers. Either the source is wrong (in which case another source is needed to prove it) or the table is wrong.
  • Footnote I, for the 1984 draft, incorrectly implies that the 5th overall pick (Bill Maas) was traded from the Rams – it should be in the row below for John Alt. The newspaper source (54) says that the 21st overall pick (John Alt) was the one traded. This is correctly written in the footnote, it is simply in the wrong row.
  • Footnote F, the NFL source (49) states that the Chiefs got Matuszak and a third-round pick. The NYT source (48) makes no mention of the third-round pick. Pro Football Reference confirms that Kansas had two third-round picks in 1976 [25]. I'm assuming that the NYT article made an erroneous omission – I suggest moving source 49 ahead of 48, and possible removing source 48 entirely. The NFL page cites the Associated Press, perhaps you can find an AP article floating around somewhere to replace the NYT article.
  • Footnotes S and Z have other footnotes in them. I think this is okay, I just find it hilarious.

Other prose:

  • "1970 AFL–NFL merger" is not great (MOS:SEAOFBLUE). I am not sure that the season link is necessary here, since you're only discussing the merger, so I suggest removing it. If you prefer, you can try rewording it to separate the two links.
  • Clarifying the common draft: I think it would be helpful to readers to specify in which years the "common draft" took place. Currently, the article said this took place "As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966", which is a little confusing. They actually took place every year for three years, from 1967 to 1969. (This is in the sources already cited, plus a little bit of WP:CALC).
  • Last lead paragraph: The jump from "did not draft a player" to "Four of the team's first-round picks" was a little jarring – I was expecting an explanation on why they didn't draft a player in the first round nine times. (I'm assuming they traded their picks to other teams?) Also, when Sayers is mentioned for the second time, only his last name is necessary. Technically the same goes for Buchanan, but since the two mentions are in different paragraphs I don't mind using his full name again.

Sources:

  • Sources 19 and 20 are OK. Source 18 should probably use cite web or cite news instead of cite magazine – I couldn't find any indication that it was actually published in the magazine, and it's written "By B. Duane Cross, CNNSI.com". This is a very minor change, but it makes all the difference in the visual editor.
  • Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are OK. They do indeed back up everything in the image caption (finding where in the database it shows that he became starting QB in 2018 was a pain, but it's there).
  • Source 23 is OK. Since it covers most of the table, I checked some entries at random, found no issues.
  • Verified Source 25.
  • Source 45 should be titled "The 1968 NFL Draft" or "The 1968 NFL Draft Picks", not "68".
  • Source 53, 54, 66, 70 are OK and factually verified. 66 is representative of a slew of similar ones.
  • Source 49 verified. See Footnote F above for concern about source 48.
  • Source 28 doesn't explicitly say that Gale Sayers was drafted by the Chiefs but signed for the Bears instead. Is it possible to find a source that explicitly says this in a sentence? I don't think combining information from two tables (sources 23 and 28) is unreasonable SYNTH but it would be nice to have this one clarified. Update: Source 26 says this explicitly, I suggest citing it in Sayers's row in the table.
  • Source 30 is OK. Thank you for archiving it!
  • Sources 50 and 51 are OK. I am impressed by the level of digging and (permissible) SYNTH it took to put together these footnotes – the words "No. 38 overall" require both sources and some addition to deduce.
  • Sources 26 and 27 verified. 27 could be retitled "Kansas City Chiefs: Team Greats" for specificity. This has to be deduced from the URL though, so maybe it isn't a good idea.

Table:

  • Space before dagger: I think the dagger symbol should be separated from player names by a space to improve readability. Most milhist articles do this in their infoboxes. A counterargument might be that the asterisk doesn't need a space before it, and putting a space before one symbol and not the other might make it inconsistent. Maybe add spaces before both symbols?
  • Double dagger in key is unused: the ‡ is in the table key but is never used. I'm pretty sure it should be next to Buck Buchanan's name in the table.

Toadspike (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm taking a break, I think this is enough for tonight. I think I'm about halfway through, I'll come back and finish up tomorrow. Toadspike (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh I've completed my source review, please ping me once you've addressed all my concerns (or once you've explained why they're silly), or if you have questions. My largest lasting concern is making sure that the traded picks in the "Notes" column are listed next to the correct players. Reading my comments above, I found three such errors in the footnotes. You may want to check the few I haven't, especially the older ones not cited to Pro Football Reference (1993 and earlier). Toadspike (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Footnotes:
  • Second use of "sixth-" in Footnote R is missing a hyphen. – Fixed.
  • Footnote X ends with a double period ("Jr.."), I think only one is necessary but couldn't find it in the MOS. Update: found it at MOS:CONSECUTIVE. – Fixed, noted for future reference.
  • Footnote D may have a factual error. Source 44 says that the pick "turned out to be Mo Moorman", but the table lists Moorman as the Chiefs' own pick and George Daney as the pick traded from the Oilers. Either the source is wrong (in which case another source is needed to prove it) or the table is wrong. – Blech. These situations come up way more often than I like where teams credit the wrong pick of a round. I've replaced that reference with one that does not explicitly call out that the pick turned out to be Mo Moorman.
  • Footnote I, for the 1984 draft, incorrectly implies that the 5th overall pick (Bill Maas) was traded from the Rams – it should be in the row below for John Alt. The newspaper source (54) says that the 21st overall pick (John Alt) was the one traded. This is correctly written in the footnote, it is simply in the wrong row. – Fixed.
  • Footnote F, the NFL source (49) states that the Chiefs got Matuszak and a third-round pick. The NYT source (48) makes no mention of the third-round pick. Pro Football Reference confirms that Kansas had two third-round picks in 1976 [26]. I'm assuming that the NYT article made an erroneous omission – I suggest moving source 49 ahead of 48, and possible removing source 48 entirely. The NFL page cites the Associated Press, perhaps you can find an AP article floating around somewhere to replace the NYT article. – Unfortunately, publications of the past had a tendency to focus and value only the first, and sometimes second, round selections, so I often see relevant but smaller details left out of RS. That's a big part of what's made some of these lists difficult. My understand is the the NFL page actually is not citing the Associated Press, but instead giving them credit for the image. Never the less, I agree the NYT's exclusion is an issue, and I've replaced that source.
  • Footnotes S and Z have other footnotes in them. I think this is okay, I just find it hilarious. – I'm glad you found it amusing! I felt it the best way to consistently point towards the relevant trades when necessary.
Other prose:
  • "1970 AFL–NFL merger" is not great (MOS:SEAOFBLUE). I am not sure that the season link is necessary here, since you're only discussing the merger, so I suggest removing it. If you prefer, you can try rewording it to separate the two links. – Reworded to "The Chiefs joined the NFL prior to the 1970 season as a result of the AFL–NFL merger."
  • Clarifying the common draft: I think it would be helpful to readers to specify in which years the "common draft" took place. Currently, the article said this took place "As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966", which is a little confusing. They actually took place every year for three years, from 1967 to 1969. (This is in the sources already cited, plus a little bit of WP:CALC). – Hm. It just occurred to me, Common draft is not entirely accurate... The "common draft era" refers to anything from the 1967 onwards and is more of an informal name for "NFL draft" now. I've brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#"Common_draft_era". I won't bombard you with the sources that state this here, but this misunderstanding seems mostly related to the state of common draft as opposed to the text that the lead has written. Any thoughts on this with the clarification?
  • Last lead paragraph: The jump from "did not draft a player" to "Four of the team's first-round picks" was a little jarring – I was expecting an explanation on why they didn't draft a player in the first round nine times. (I'm assuming they traded their picks to other teams?) Also, when Sayers is mentioned for the second time, only his last name is necessary. Technically the same goes for Buchanan, but since the two mentions are in different paragraphs I don't mind using his full name again. – I think the pivot from "did not draft" to "four of the team's first-round picks" isn't bad, but I'm open to suggestions. I think/hope the table speaks for itself in that aspect. I think it'd be difficult to summarize the reasons for this in the lead and that trying to do so would bloat it in a way that would make the article worse. Again though, I'm open to suggestions. Good catch on Sayers, second mention is now just "Sayers". I'd prefer to keep the unlinked full name for Buck Buchanan in the second paragraph, I think it's contextually an improvement over just listing the last name in this case.
Sources:
  • Sources 19 and 20 are OK. Source 18 should probably use cite web or cite news instead of cite magazine – I couldn't find any indication that it was actually published in the magazine, and it's written "By B. Duane Cross, CNNSI.com". This is a very minor change, but it makes all the difference in the visual editor. – The standard, for whatever reason, is to cite Sports Illustrated as a magazine. If I swap it to anything else then Citation Bot would eventually switch it back. See here where it changed it to magazine (as it has across all my featured list nominations). With that said, you did make me realize/become aware of CNN/SI, which I've now changed the publisher to. Fun note, that wasn't automatically changed to magazine by Citation Bot, so that's neat.
  • Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are OK. They do indeed back up everything in the image caption (finding where in the database it shows that he became starting QB in 2018 was a pain, but it's there). – I think it's a matter of familiarity with the sources. I do agree that, on first look, it can be difficult for people unfamiliar with the site to grasp it, but it does verify it.
  • Source 45 should be titled "The 1968 NFL Draft" or "The 1968 NFL Draft Picks", not "68". – I feel mixed about this. The page title is just two digits, and I don't really love to editorialize titles to the subtitles.
  • Source 49 verified. See Footnote F above for concern about source 48. – Addressed above.
  • Source 28 doesn't explicitly say that Gale Sayers was drafted by the Chiefs but signed for the Bears instead. Is it possible to find a source that explicitly says this in a sentence? I don't think combining information from two tables (sources 23 and 28) is unreasonable SYNTH but it would be nice to have this one clarified. Update: Source 26 says this explicitly, I suggest citing it in Sayers's row in the table. – Source 28 does say he was drafted by both teams, to the same degree that 26 does, but unfortunately it's one of those things tucked away in a tab lower down in the page. I did however just find a better source that I've since added which is more explicit in stating this fact.
  • Sources 50 and 51 are OK. I am impressed by the level of digging and (permissible) SYNTH it took to put together these footnotes – the words "No. 38 overall" require both sources and some addition to deduce. – Thank you! This feels like how I had to do way too many trades! I wish more sources explicitly stated the pick numbers (and were correct when doing so). Thank goodness for "from Kansas City" lol.
  • Sources 26 and 27 verified. 27 could be retitled "Kansas City Chiefs: Team Greats" for specificity. This has to be deduced from the URL though, so maybe it isn't a good idea. – Yeah, I try to avoid editorializing titles whenever possible.
Really there was only one instance where the note was in the wrong place, which I'm quite grateful you caught. Thank you very much for the thorough review, I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Footnotes:  Resolved
Other prose:
  • Adjacent links  Resolved
  • Common draft: Thanks for the explanation. My revised suggestion adding the word 'began':
As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues began holding a multiple round "common draft".
This small change should make the situation clear enough and technically correct.
  • Last lead paragraph: I now agree that more prose isn't needed here. Sayers' name has been corrected.  Resolved
Sources:
  • Editorializing titles: Source 27 can be left as-is. However, I still think source 45 should be retitled "The 1968 NFL Draft", which is a huge heading at the top of the webpage. I don't think it's editorializing to use that as the title. "68" seems to just be some sort of web parameter.
  • Otherwise  Resolved
Table:
  • Have you had a chance to look at this section yet? There is one minor formatting change (really up to you whether you choose to add a space or not), and the wrong symbol next to Buck Buchanan's name (should be ‡, not †).
Incorrect note: I goofed in summarizing my own comments, this is now  Resolved
Toadspike (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry @Toadspike, I actually missed the table when I copy and pasted your feedback. I've fixed the symbol next to Buck Buchanan's name, that was definitely an error to use † instead of ‡. As for the spacing, I've personally always felt that the symbol right next to the name was preferable over the space, though I understand it's a preference kind of thing. It's something I'll mull over and maybe come back and do in the future, but for the time being, I don't think it's an improvement.
  • As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues began holding a multiple round "common draft". – I've made this change and applied it across all of the lists I've worked on for first-round picks.
  • Editorializing titles: Source 27 can be left as-is. However, I still think source 45 should be retitled "The 1968 NFL Draft", which is a huge heading at the top of the webpage. I don't think it's editorializing to use that as the title. "68" seems to just be some sort of web parameter. – I don't looove it, but I get it. I went ahead and changed it.
I hope that I've now addressed everything @Toadspike. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you for the very quick response. All of my concerns have been addressed, source review passed. I support this FLC. Toadspike (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [27].

List of Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This is nomination #11 for me in this series and will hopefully be #31 in the series to be promoted. This is the second to last nomination in the series, so we're almost done! This nomination's format matches that of other AFL team lists I've helped to promote, such as the Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Source & image review from Dylan620

I'm going to tackle a source review this time around – a (very) cursory glance is already promising, with extensive usage of at least two reliable sources that have been cited extensively in previous lists. Should be finished tomorrow or the day after. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review on hold, details below:
  • The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use {{cite news}} instead of {{cite web}}.
  • Spot-checked refs 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 30 (ref numbers as they appear in this revision):
    • Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a via parameter added to mention USA Today?
    • Footnote A, cited to ref 24, states that the last pick in the first draft was No. 26 overall, but the source states No. 27.
    • Ref 26 makes no mention of Charles Alexander; I would recommend additionally citing ref 24 in footnote F, since that one does mention Alexander.
    • Adding {{rp|page(s)=n}} after each citation to ref 24 wouldn't hurt, just so the reader knows which page(s) specifically to look for the information that the source is being used to verify.
  • Source formatting is consistent across the board.
  • All sources are reliable enough for the information they are being used to verify.
After finishing the above source review, I decided to do an image review as well. Image review passes, details below:
  • All images that are present contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • All images have suitable alt text.
  • Sourcing for each image checks out, as do the sources for the captions.
  • The captions themselves are well-written.
  • All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
Excellent work once again, Josh! I have no concerns with the images, and only a few quibbles with the sources; once those are resolved (or adequately explained), I look forward to supporting. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
A couple minor things I forgot to mention:
  • "as a result of the 1970 AFL–NFL merger.[4][5][3]" – the refs should be listed in ascending order here.
  • "Only one of the team's first-round picks ... have been elected" – have → has
Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use cite news instead of cite web . – Done.
  • Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a via parameter added to mention USA Today? – I actually hadn't noticed that and skipped the middle man by replacing the ref with the version from the Enquirer.
  • Footnote A, cited to ref 24, states that the last pick in the first draft was No. 26 overall, but the source states No. 27. – That's a definite mistake on my part. The mistake stems from the wording of "second and last pick in the round". Normally there'd be 26 picks in the round (1 per team) and I didn't factor in that this added a pick to the end of the round. Fixed.
  • Ref 26 makes no mention of Charles Alexander; I would recommend additionally citing ref 24 in footnote F, since that one does mention Alexander. – Normally it'd be fine not to mention Alexander, as the notes are mostly about how the pick was acquired / why the team's position in the draft changed. I use the reference at the top of the column to verify the player who was picked, their position, college, etc. So, while it's not explicitly cited in that note, it is verifiable based on the column reference. With that said, I noticed that my source I used didn't explicitly state the pick number, which is something I'm always trying to verify. As such, I did add another source to verify the info (from the Pro Football Hall of Fame).
  • Adding after each citation to ref 24 wouldn't hurt, just so the reader knows which page(s) specifically to look for the information that the source is being used to verify. – Personally I think the small page range (226–232) and the numbered subheadings for drafts in the source should be straight forward enough to make the information easy to find.
  • "as a result of the 1970 AFL–NFL merger.[4][5][3]" – the refs should be listed in ascending order here. – Is that an actual thing noted down anywhere? I personally prefer to use the references in the order that they would be verifying information for the sentence. For instance, if the lowest numbered ref (let's say 3), verified the end of the sentence, I would want to use it as the last reference despite the order. That may just be a stylistic preference of mine, but I'm now really curious if that's an MOS thing we should adhere to?
  • "Only one of the team's first-round picks ... have been elected" – have → has – Done.
I believe/hope I've addressed all of your concerns, pending a reply to a couple. Thanks so much for providing a source and image review and the helpful feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems you are correct about the ref ordering—I had seen it brought up as an issue in another FLC, which led me to point it out when noticing it in subsequent reviews I've conducted, but upon double-checking WP:CITEORDER, I read that both approaches are acceptable and it's all down to stylistic preference. All other fixes and explanations look/sound good to me. All that needs to be done now is for archived URLs to be added for the updated ref 4 and the newly added ref 27, but that is minor and easily fixable—the source review passes and I am pleased to support this FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • Support promotion. No issues with the text or table accessibility. A couple of refs are missing archive links, but that's not a deal breaker. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824! I manually saved the two pages missing archive links to the Internet Archive. They should be available to IABot in about an hour and I'll be sure to re-run the bot to make sure that's addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

  • There would be a few recommendations (spelling out the positions, shorter See also section, etc) but we have discussed these and I respect your consistent approach.
  • Recommend adding File:Ja'Marr Chase.jpg as a recent and well-known draft pick.

Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Good call, I've gone ahead and added that image. Thanks for the review and suggestion @Gonzo fan2007! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [28].

List of Jacksonville Jaguars first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This is nomination #12 in this series and will be, provided everything goes well, THE LAST IN THE 32-TEAM SERIES! WOO! This is the shortest list of the bunch because the Jaguars are one of the newest teams to enter the league, doing so in 1995. This lists' format is based on my previous successful nominations/other lists in the set. As always, I will do my best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review

  • Good job on the series. I'll take the source review. I don't see any unreliable sources and everything is archived. Ref numbers from this rev. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Ref 1 Good; Written by Mark Long
  • Ref 2 Good
  • Ref 3 Good
  • Ref 4 Good
  • Ref 5 Good
  • Ref 6 Good
  • Ref 7 Good
  • Ref 8 Good
  • Ref 9 Good
  • Ref 10 Good
  • Ref 11 Good
  • Ref 12 Good
  • Ref 13 Good
  • Ref 14 Good
  • Ref 15 Good
  • Ref 17 Good
  • Ref 17 Good
  • Ref 18 Good
  • Ref 19 Good
  • Ref 20 Good
  • Ref 21 Good
  • Ref 22 Good
  • Ref 23 Good
  • Ref 24 Good
  • Ref 25 Good
  • Ref 26 Good
  • Ref 27 Good
  • Ref 28 Good
  • Ref 29 Good

I decided to check all of them given how few there are. Let me know when you make the fix. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look @OlifanofmrTennant! I've reviewed ref 1, including turning off my ad blocker just in case, and I'm not seeing an author of Mark Long. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Looking over it now I confused two AP news sources. That's my bad. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
No worries, it happens. I'm just happy and grateful to have received a review, especially a source review, so quickly! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review from Dylan620

  • All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • All images have suitable alt text.
  • All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
  • Sourcing for each image checks out; ditto for the captions.
  • The captions themselves are well-written and present pertinent information on the players pictured.

Support on images – congratulations on finishing an impressive series! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the congratulations! Of course, much of that congratulations goes to the individuals who helped to promote the 20 other lists before I started chipping in, but I'll post a recap about it once this one gets promoted :) Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Since that time, he's been selected" - write "he has" in full
  • Is there a link for "edge rusher"? I've not encountered this term before and it isn't mentioned in the position key.
  • That's all I got. Great work as ever :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    Hey @ChrisTheDude, thanks so much for the review and for catching what you did! I've addressed both your comments. For a long winded explanation though... In American football, "edge rusher" is a catchall term that typically refers to a defensive player who rushes the quarterback from the edge of the offensive line, pretty much always outside linebackers and defensive ends. NFL teams typically use 4-3 (4 defensive linemen, 3 linebackers) or 3-4 (3 defensive linemen and 4 linebackers) as their "base" defense, though this base can change depending on the plays. An edge rusher, such as prominent players TJ Watt and Von Miller, will sometimes be designated as a linebacker or a defensive end depending on the scheme and you may notice the role being the same as an outside observer. The Josh Allen in this article was once located at Josh Allen (defensive end) but was moved to Josh Allen (linebacker). Their role didn't really change, but their official designation did. Given that they are listed as a linebacker now and were drafted as a defensive end, using this term makes the most sense in this context. Josh Allen is actually a great example of this. If you look at his PFR, you'll see he was listed as a DE (defensive end) his first two years and then as an OLB (outside linebacker) his last three years. PFR also designates his position as edge. The position label is being more used often in recent years, even becoming a dedicated slot on the 2023 All-Pro Team. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

  • Support. Didn't find anything that require further improvement from my read. Congrats on completing this series. Great work! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review and the congrats, much appreciated @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

  • Support even nitpicking, I can't find any recommended edits. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [29].

Detroit Lions draft history

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

My last 11 nominations have been based on NFL first-round draft picks, but given that that series is now all promoted or nominated, it's time to move on to my next project! I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria and as part of what I hope to be my first featured topic (this would be the subject of the topic, with 3 sub lists eventually). This list is based on Green Bay Packers draft history, which was promoted to featured list status on March 23, 2024. As always, I will do my best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007 (Source review: Passed)

  • When you do complete the individual picks lists, are you planning to link them from the table, similar to Green Bay Packers draft history?
  • the franchise was relocated to Detroit and renamed to the Detroit Lions in, I think you could drop the second "Detroit" and just say "renamed to the Lions".
  • Billy Sims and 1950 NFL draft have duplicate links in the lead
  • Source review:
    • Reliable sources on what is being cited
    • Consistent formatting
    • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for
    • Ref 10 and 44 are the same, should be combined.
  • Support on sources and overall! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for the review @Gonzo fan2007!
    • If you view the table with source editor you'll see that I've actually got all the links in the table ready and commented out for when I move the individual pick lists to main space.
    • I think you could drop the second "Detroit" and just say "renamed to the Lions". – I'm hesitant to do this just for the reason that someone might mislead the statement to mean they were renamed to the "Portsmouth Lions".
    • Refs 10 and 44 have been combined.
    Aside from the comment about naming, I believe everything has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    Awesome, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

  • With the eigth pick -- eighth pick
  • In addition to the 1984 supplemental draft, since 1977 the NFL has hosted an annual supplemental draft -- think it should work better if changed to: In addition to the 1984 supplemental draft, the NFL has hosted an annual supplemental draft since 1977...
  • The Lions have selected first overall in a draft four times, selecting Frank Sinkwich -- suggest switching variation on selected then selecting to avoid being repetitive
  • That's all from me. Great work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Pseud 14:
    • Fixed typo
    • Made suggested change
    • The Lions have selected first overall in a draft four times, selecting... -> The Lions have drafted first overall four times, selecting... – Does that work you think?
    I very much appreciate your feedback, thank you for the review! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Changes look good. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "In 1936, the Lions took part in the first NFL draft of college football players and have participated in every NFL draft since." => "The Lions took part in the first NFL draft of college football players in 1936 and have participated in every NFL draft since."
  • "except for the short-lived All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in the late 1940s" - does this mean that that league also had a draft? If so then "except for that of the short-lived All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in the late 1940s"
  • "special drafts have occurred. This included" => "special drafts have occurred. These included"
  • " the number of rounds and the number of picks has fluctuated significantly" => " the number of rounds and the number of picks have fluctuated significantly"
  • "The Lions participated in in the most recent draft in 2024" - duplicate "in"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    • "In 1936, the Lions took part in the first NFL draft of college football players and have participated in every NFL draft since." -> "The Lions took part in the first NFL draft of college football players in 1936 and have participated in every NFL draft since." – Done, that does work better imo.
    • "except for the short-lived All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in the late 1940s" - does this mean that that league also had a draft? If so then "except for that of the short-lived All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in the late 1940s" – It did, I've made the change.
    • "special drafts have occurred. This included" -> "special drafts have occurred. These included" – Done.
    • " the number of rounds and the number of picks has fluctuated significantly" -> " the number of rounds and the number of picks have fluctuated significantly" – Done.
    • "The Lions participated in in the most recent draft in 2024" - duplicate "in" – D'oh, done.
    Thanks so much for the review and feedback @ChrisTheDude! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Support by Lee V

  • I like that the lede goes into depths straight away about what the team is, and it's history.
  • Do we need to use the word "franchise". It's quite an American term for a team.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    I agree, it is a rather American term, but after giving it some thought I do feel it is probably the best terminology for referring to the organization. Absolutely open to suggestions, but the only other terms that sprung to mind were team, club, and organization, none of which felt more appropriate than franchise in this context. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The article seems to require that you know what a draft is. The lede just states they were in the first one. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    Hmmm. Do you mean draft as a general concept, or to better explain the purpose of the NFL drafts? For reference, I've typically used the second and third paragraphs at List of Detroit Lions first-round draft picks (with tweaks where appropriate) to explain the concept. This phrasing was taken and modified from the promoted Green Bay Packers draft history (which obviously doesn't mean it's not possibly to improve upon), which is why it differs. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Just in general really. From a UK audience, a draft is a thing that sends people to war, or you buy in pints. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    I think and hope I've addressed that by adding "When a team selects a player, the team receives exclusive rights to sign that player to a contract and no other team in the league may sign them, with limited exceptions.: Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • competing leagues.[22][23][24][25][26 - could we try WP:BUNDLING. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I think the table could do with a small intro to explain what the rounds and original draft order are rather than using notes. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Lee Vilenski: What do you think of a rework to something like User:Hey man im josh/sandbox? Also pinging @Gonzo fan2007. I would obviously clean this up more appropriately, but I do think, if more information is included, the lead becomes too long. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Admittedly, I am biased, but I think the current format is better. I don't think there is anything wrong with using notes. My thought to address the comment above would be to maybe add to the NFL draft was the only selection process to retain the rights to sign college football players collegiate draft for players of American football. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    I too am biased towards notes. I'm struggling with striking the right balance between information at a glance vs expecting readers to go to other articles for more in depth info. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Lee Vilenski: I apologize for the delay. I've bundled the refs and I added a bit to the section, with references, that I believe adequately explains things. I believe all of your feedback has been addressed. The remaining question has to do with whether franchise is the best word or whether there's a better one. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    No pressure, just sending a gentle reminder ping about this to check whether everything's been addressed @Lee Vilenski. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
EN-Jungwon
  • Ref 16 replace |last1=Rosdon with |last1=Risdon
  • Ref 25 replace |first1=Matthew with |first1=Michael

-- EN-Jungwon 07:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: I have made the changes. Thank you for catching these. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Support -- EN-Jungwon 13:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [30].

List of Jacksonville Jaguars seasons

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is my third nomination of an NFL team season list and I believe it meets all of our criteria. The format is based on past successful nominations of List of Detroit Lions seasons and List of New Orleans Saints seasons. As always, I will do my best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

  • No issues with prose in the lead. I do think "winningest" is a bit informal, perhaps consider tweaking that in the caption.
  • I think the image placement needs to be redone. Perhaps move Tom's image under the "Seasons" section so it doesn't overcrowd your lead. (similar to the other FLs of Detroit and New Orleans). Seems File:Tom Coughlin crop.jpg is a much better image. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Pseud 14: Thank you for suggestion that image, I've replaced it in the article and moved it under the season section, per your suggestion. I've also tweaked the caption. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The Jaguars are one of four teams to have never played in a Super Bowl" - I'd change this to "The Jaguars are one of four current NFL teams to have never played in a Super Bowl" as there are plenty of other teams that have never played in a Super Bowl.
  • "Despite never having played in a Super Bowl, the team has played in the AFC Championship Game on three occasions (1996, 1999, and 2017)" - I'd be tempted to reframe this as "The team has played in the AFC Championship Game on three occasions (1996, 1999, and 2017) but lost each time"
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Took your advice on both, done! Thank you very much for the feedback :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
MPGuy2824
  • "The team plays its home games at EverBank Stadium in Central Jacksonville." The ref after this does not support this statement. Also, it should probably be "central".
  • Wikilink the first instance of "playoffs".
  • Is there a reason that the 1995 row is set to sort at the top?
  • Sorting by the "Finish" column leads to some weird stuff happening with the "All-time regular & postseason record" columns. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    @MPGuy2824: I prepped this list so long ago and I clearly should have given it a better lookover since I prepped it when I Was much less experienced than I am now. All of the sorting issues have been resolved and I've added a wikilink at the first instance of playoffs. I've also actually updated their location to "downtown Jacksonville" with a reference. Thank you very much for the review and feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Some of the keys (T-#, Pct, ‡Super Bowl champions and *Conference champions) aren't applicable to this team/list and can be removed unless you are keeping them in for consistency with other similar lists.
    • Is "at" a common abbreviation for "against" in the Hand Egg world? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
      I hid those portions of the key, thanks for that suggestion @MPGuy2824. The "at" is a standard descriptor in most North American sports from what I'm aware of. It's meant to represent that the game was not a home game. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Dajasj

  • Do the bottom three rows (the Totals) really need to be double bold?
  • I understand why you do it, but I think it would be simpler if you only link to the page of the team of that season, and not the season page (so skip the first column). A reader can still reach it through the team page and it makes the table smaller which is great for mobile.
  • I also understand why you included League and Conference, but I would only do that when there are different values. Now it makes the table more complex (and I expect a row to be different).
  • It might be too late to change the format, but I would prefer the postseason in a seperate table. Right now, it makes the table unnecessary long (so I can compare less on my desktop screen), while only adding info to one column. Same point for Awards btw.
  • I believe the Head Coach can be made sortable, so you can sort to get the season with the most wins for a head coach.
  • I have not used it myself so I am not sure of the downsides, but excluding the final rows from sorting would be great. Dajasj (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Dajasj:
    • Do the bottom three rows (the Totals) really need to be double bold? – I hadn't noticed they were doubled. It doesn't really affect anything, but it's been removed.
    • I understand why you do it, but I think it would be simpler if you only link to the page of the team of that season, and not the season page (so skip the first column). A reader can still reach it through the team page and it makes the table smaller which is great for mobile. – You say easily, but when you navigate to the season pages there's no direct links to the season themselves in many cases. I don't think this would be an improvement to the table or better serve our readers in any way.
    • I also understand why you included League and Conference, but I would only do that when there are different values. Now it makes the table more complex (and I expect a row to be different). – I disagree. The league and conference are relevant and can and have changed for a number of different NFL teams. This is part of the standard format for lists of NFL team seasons for that reason and it would be odd to have this page follow a different format than the rest.
    • It might be too late to change the format, but I would prefer the postseason in a seperate table. Right now, it makes the table unnecessary long (so I can compare less on my desktop screen), while only adding info to one column. Same point for Awards btw. – That may be your preference but I would find two separate tables, one for playoffs and one for the seasons, to be much less informative and to just be a split for the sake of splitting, not to actually make any sort of improvement. The awards column is also reserved for major awards only and isn't bulky or overwhelming in any sense.
    • I believe the Head Coach can be made sortable, so you can sort to get the season with the most wins for a head coach. – This list is focused on the seasons as opposed to the head coaches themselves. While it's not included there, it may be more appropriate for List of Jacksonville Jaguars head coaches. The difficulty in making these tables sortable be sortable in the way you suggest is that coaches sometimes have partial seasons which are split with another coach.
    • I have not used it myself so I am not sure of the downsides, but excluding the final rows from sorting would be great. – That was the intention, and it's been implemented, as per the comments in the section above.
    Thank you for the feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    Regarding the second point, maybe it makes more sense to merge the first column (Season) and the third (column) League? For example linking NFL to 1995 NFL season. That way you won't have to duplicate the years, and you can add a link to the NFL text that is useful. You won't lose any information. Dajasj (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Dajasj: The history of the NFL involves a couple of mergers (List of Los Angeles Chargers seasons, List of New England Patriots seasons) teams joining from other leagues (List of Los Angeles Rams seasons), and several teams being independent prior to their joining of the NFL (List of Chicago Bears seasons, List of Green Bay Packers seasons). These examples are just some of the lists for seasons that have already been promoted to featured lists, but this is why these are two separate columns. That's why the information is there and why it's useful, even if to just state that they started as an NFL franchise and have been for the entirety of their existence. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    I'm no longer suggesting complete removal. But what if we do it like this (see the link in the second column)? If I'm not mistaken, we don't lose any information, while avoiding duplication in the Year & Team column? Should also work for all teams, or I am then still missing something? Dajasj (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Dajasj: You are suggesting removal of a column though. I think your proposed version is also an WP:EASTEREGG, given that you'd expect that shortcut to lead to National Football League. If you want to propose changes to all 32 team lists you'd be better off doing so at WT:NFL because, even if I agreed with the proposed changes, I don't feel comfortable making that sort of wide spread change on all of these articles without proper discussion. Especially considering 16 of them are already featured lists and utilize this format. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Dajasj: Do you have any more feedback? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    Nope, that's it :) Dajasj (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    Great, thank you for your review and feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

  • Why the use of {{clear}}? Seems to just create white space, regardless of the screen size.
  • They have made the playoffs a total of eight times. I would recommend two changes here: get rid of "a total of" as just fluff words, and then I would really recommend moving to the beginning of the paragraph, so it would say something like The Jaguars have made the playoffs eight times, although they are one of four current NFL teams to have never played in a Super Bowl, along with the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, and Houston Texans. This way the paragraph opens with what you are then going to talk about.

I got noting else. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Thank you taking a look over this nomination! I agree, I've removed the clear template and made the changes you've suggested. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay across the board, and the link-checker tool reveals no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 13:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [31].

Detroit Lions draft picks (1970–present)

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This list is based on Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present), which was promoted June 3, 2024. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria and as part of what I hope to be my first featured topic. This is part 3 of 4 of my work in progress featured topic, which is centered on the recently promoted Detroit Lions draft history. As always, I will do my best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

  • Support having developed the template for this list, I can state my outright support, as I don't see any deviations and my review did not pick-up any issues. That said, Hey man im josh, any reason for not including the Pride of the Lions in addition to Pro Football Hall of Famers? I'm not very familiar with their ring of honor or Detroit players in general, so more a curiosity than a request. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Gonzo fan2007: Thank you so much for the review and your support (and the format which I obviously store)! I was torn on whether to include the Pride of the Lions, but I opted not to do so for several reasons. One of which is that it does not currently have its own standalone article, though I'm working on solving that. Another reason is that there's currently only 20 people in the Lions' ring of honor, of which 15 are in the HOF, whereas the Packers, as of 2023, had 168 people inducted into their hall, making it more common to have people in their hall but not in the HOF. This part is also more based on "feels", but it feels like the Lions are still catching up on who should/shouldn't be included as well. You'll note that the Pride/ring of honor started in 2009 with the induction of 12 players already in the PFHOF. Again, this is just feels, but it doesn't feel properly representative of franchise legends at this point in time when it leaves out legends such as Herman Moore, Calvin Johnson, Dominic Raiola, and Wayne Walker. They went for the big names right away, but they're still working on better representing the franchise and expanding the ring from my POV. So, tl;dr – feels. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    Sounds good, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

I plan to do an image review in the very near future (probably once I'm finished with a source spotcheck I'm currently conducting for an FAC), but I did a quick skim of the captions and a couple of them seem... odd.

  • "Da'Shawn Hand was the Lions' -round selection in the 19 draft."
  • "Matthew Stafford was selected first overall in the 2009 Main article: 2009 NFL draft draft."

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620: Ugh, those were embarrassing oversights @Dylan620. I've fixed those. The Da'Shawn Hand one was due to not filling out the cookie cutter template I was using for images. The Stafford one was a copy and paste mistake. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: No worries, happens to all of us! I've finished the image review:
  • The images are noticeably concentrated in the span of drafts from 2007 onward. I acknowledge that many of the articles for the earlier draft picks don't have any images, but there are some that do and I think it would be beneficial to include images of, say, Dennis Franklin (if you're willing to use a sixth-round pick), Bill Bowerman (tenth-round pick, and the quality isn't great, but it may be worth considering), James Jones, Boss Bailey, and/or Roy Williams.
  • I'm having a hard time verifying the source for the photo of Steve Baack. I want to just AGF but "Detroit Lions individual game picture" (listed as the source on the Commons description page) is awfully vague.
  • According to this, the Andre Ware photo is copyrighted by the University of Houston, which contradicts the statement on the Commons description page that the file is in the public domain. It is entirely possible that the university changed the copyright status after the file was uploaded to Commons in November 2009, but in the interest of playing it better safe than sorry, I recommend replacing this image with File:Sports Analyst, Commentator & ESPN personality Andre Ware (7172160524).jpg.
  • I don't want to say this, but I feel like it's my duty as an image reviewer to do so, even if it's at the risk of sounding prudish... the current photo for Jason Hanson kind of looks like he's... erm... now obviously that isn't actually what he's doing but File:Jason Hanson kickoff cropped.jpg would be more suitable imo.
  • Some captions say what year the photo was taken, while others don't – I believe this should be standardized.
Everything else looks good. I've verified the sourcing for all of the other images (including the Ware and Hanson ones that I've suggested as replacements and the images currently used in the articles for the players listed in the first bullet), each image contributes encyclopedic value to the listicle, alt text is consistently employed, and all images (except for possibly the ones of Baack and Ware) are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The images are noticeably concentrated in the span of drafts from 2007 onward. – This was indeed a problem, but I took what I could for each year.
  • I acknowledge that many of the articles for the earlier draft picks don't have any images, but there are some that do and I think it would be beneficial to include images of, say, Dennis Franklin (if you're willing to use a sixth-round pick), Bill Bowerman (tenth-round pick, and the quality isn't great, but it may be worth considering), James Jones, Boss Bailey, and/or Roy Williams. – So, I was open to using the photos of anybody if there was one available for that year. What I tried to avoid doing was adding images that contained non-Lions players or players that were Lions but are wearing the jerseys of other teams. I struggled a bit with this, but I felt given the focus of the article, it was better not to show Lions' draftees wearing other other NFL team's jerseys
  • I'm having a hard time verifying the source for the photo of Steve Baack. I want to just AGF but "Detroit Lions individual game picture" (listed as the source on the Commons description page) is awfully vague. – Fair point. I think it's a sick photo, but we obviously have too many questions about it to include.
  • According to this, the Andre Ware photo is copyrighted by the University of Houston, which contradicts the statement on the Commons description page that the file is in the public domain. It is entirely possible that the university changed the copyright status after the file was uploaded to Commons in November 2009, but in the interest of playing it better safe than sorry, I recommend replacing this image with File:Sports Analyst, Commentator & ESPN personality Andre Ware (7172160524).jpg. – Bummer, another photo I really liked, but I'm not finding any internet archives to verify that the copyright was what's listed at commons at the time. Replaced the image, per your suggestion, but I used a cropped version of that image.
  • I don't want to say this, but I feel like it's my duty as an image reviewer to do so, even if it's at the risk of sounding prudish... the current photo for Jason Hanson kind of looks like he's... erm... now obviously that isn't actually what he's doing but File:Jason Hanson kickoff cropped.jpg would be more suitable imo. – Do you have a different image suggestion? Jason Hanson is quite the franchise legend, and I tried to avoid showing players from the back when possibly.
  • Some captions say what year the photo was taken, while others don't – I believe this should be standardized. – I typically only did this for instances where an image shows a person who's not currently in playing shape/attire. Unfortunately it's difficult to determine the year in a lot of instances. If I had it my way, it would be players in Lions gear the entire way through with no years being necessary to state. But I felt it better to include images of the players in their 60s as opposed to vast parts with no images at all.
Thanks for the feedback @Dylan620. I don't typically include a ton of images, but I tried to include a lot in this instance. I aimed to prioritize pictures of players in Lions apparel, then focused on simply including an image at all. I tried to avoid including images of players wearing jerseys of other teams, given the focus, and avoided group shots or cropped them when I could. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
My pleasure Josh – you make reasonable points, though in keeping with where an image shows a person who's not currently in playing shape/attire I would encourage you to add the year to the photo of Leon Crosswhite. As for Hanson, I've tried my hand at a crop – what do you think? There are presently only two images of Hanson on Commons (excluding the crop), and a search for Flickr uploads under compatible licensing came up dry. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the catch with Crosswhite @Dylan620, I've made that fix. I've also taken your advice and used a cropped version of the image for Jason Hanson, though I went with File:Detroit Lions placekicker Jason Hanson at the 2012 Lions training camp (cropped 2).jpg. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks good to me, Josh. I note that the Baack photo is still in the listicle, and while I agree with you that it's a great photo (indeed, it reminds me of an old newspaper clipping, and that gives it an antiquated charm), I unfortunately still think the photo should be removed, since I haven't been able to verify the sourcing or copyright status. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Woops, taken care of the Baack photo @Dylan620. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we're good to go – support! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

  • Support - nothing that I can think of that requires further improvement after my read and is aligned with similar FLs. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for the lookover! Every extra set of eyes is a benefit :) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • Suggest changing "Since 1970, two players drafted by the Lions have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame" to "Two players since 1970 drafted by the Lions have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame", as the previous wording could indicate that two players drafted before 1970 have been inducted since 1970
  • That's it I think - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: I've rephrased it to "Two players drafted by the Lions since 1970 have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame" – Is this acceptable? Thank you very much for taking a look and providing feedback, I very much appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    That's actually exactly what I meant to put but I see now that I messed up the copy and paste :-D Now more than happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Driveby from Queen of Hearts

per MOS:ORDER, the images should be below the {{main}} on each section. Queen of Hearts talk 22:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Damn. @Queen of Hearts, I moved the images below {{main}} because having that template above the images moved the images down, which messed with the spacing a bit. Images start on the next line instead of the same line (visually) with how it's currently set up. I'll definitely fix it on Monday when I'm on PC again, but do you have any suggestions on how to deal with that? Hey man im josh (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Queen of Hearts, I think you are misreading the MOS. Unless I am missing something, the section you are referencing is Section #1 in MOS:ORDER, which has hatnotes as #3 and images as #10 in the placement order. However, Section #1 in MOS:ORDER is only referencing the placement of different things Before the article content. This placement is important to make sure everything shows up in the right place at the beginning of the article, such as not having hatnotes be placed after the infobox. Section #2 in MOS:ORDER covers the placement of different things within the Article content. The part you are referencing is clearly the article content, and Section #2 says nothing about the placement of hatnotes relative to images. Hey man im josh, unless I am missing something, this change should not be made. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Schminnte

Did someone say source review? Sources are reliable for information cited, references are formatted consistently with dates all to MDY and consistent links, and all references are archived.

Onto spotchecks:

  • 1, 10, 14, 16, 32, 40, 49 and 59 are all passes.
  • 5 and 6 are passes, but just verify the same thing. Do we need both?
  • Ditto above for 7, 8 and 9 (why was 6 afraid of 7?), why do we need three sources for an uncontroversial claim?
  • 18 is a partial pass, but does not verify The Lions have taken part in every modern NFL draft since 1970. Is this a SKYISBLUE situation?
  • Am I missing something on 33, because I see no mention of any of the "Pro teams"?

No quibbles on prose. Will be happy to support after concerns are addressed, nice work. Schminnte [talk to me] 21:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  • 5 and 6 are passes, but just verify the same thing. Do we need both? – I used to have just one reference for this fact, but I eventually found one I felt was better and tacked it on instead of replacing it, which is probably what I should have done. Better to use DAZN as the source over Ford Field themselves, so I've removed the reference to Ford Field's site from this article as well as six others, all of which used two refs instead of one for this.
  • Ditto above for 7, 8 and 9 (why was 6 afraid of 7?), why do we need three sources for an uncontroversial claim? – It's more to do with the fact that it's common name is the "NFL Draft" whereas it's actual name is officially the "NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting", a name that it's rarely actually called. Prior to working on the series of draft articles I actually had no idea that this was a thing. I've removed one of the refs, but I'd prefer to leave two for this case if you don't mind.
  • 18 is a partial pass, but does not verify The Lions have taken part in every modern NFL draft since 1970. Is this a SKYISBLUE situation? – SKYISBLUE to me isn't the same as SKYISBLUE to everyone else, and I may have blind spots because of it. While I was trying to avoid re-using another PFR source, I'm going to do so here, which means the other source I have from The Sporting News becomes redundant, so it's been removed.
  • Am I missing something on 33, because I see no mention of any of the "Pro teams"? – Good catch, thank you for that. I've added a reference to the Pro Football Hall of Fame which calls out the teams they were on in brackets. It only lists Oklahoma, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh instead of the full team names, but hopefully this is enough given the context of it being a draft of CFL and USFL players and those city names only coinciding with one team each
Thank you for the review @Schminnte! I hope all of your concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh, I think all the concerns above are resolved. Happy to support promotion. Schminnte [talk to me] 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [32].

Detroit Lions draft picks (1936–1969)

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm extremely excited about this nomination, probably more so than any other nomination I've made, because this is the final part of a 4-part featured topic (my first!) that I've been working on based on the Detroit Lions draft history. If and when this list is promoted, I'll be receiving my first Triple Crown (provided they let me use a FT as my GT submission, someone pointed out I should probably follow up to see if this a thing) and making my first featured topic nomination!

This list is based on Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969), which was promoted on June 3rd, and should meet all featured list criteria. As always, I will do my best to quickly respond to and address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • A handful of players have no college listed and Lou Creekmur has no team in the AAFC dispersal draft - is this intentional or an oversight? If intentional, maybe add footnotes explaining how they came to be drafted without a college/AAFC team......
  • "Hall of Fame linebacker Joe Schmidt was selected in the seventh-round" => "Hall of Fame linebacker Joe Schmidt was selected in the seventh round" (you only need to hyphenate it when it's being used as an adjective)
  • Similrly "Hall of Fame defensive tackle Alex Karras was selected by the Lions' in the first-round of the 1958 draft." => "Hall of Fame defensive tackle Alex Karras was selected by the Lions' in the first round of the 1958 draft."
  • That's all I got. Great work as ever!-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Creekmur was a very weird case... I added some notes, but, in short, he was drafted by an AAFC (and NFL) team but returned to school anyways. As a result, when the leagues merged, he was put into the player pool that was eligible for being drafted, despite never having played or signed for the LA Dons. I've added a note for clarity.
    • Fixed the text for Schmidt and Karras
    As for the colleges, I'll work on figuring out why they aren't listed. Perhaps that was a little bit lazy of me, instead of just going with what was available. Newspapers.com here I come! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Surprisingly, I was able to find all the college information, which I've added with references now. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

  • Support. Nice work and in line with similar FLs. Could not find anything to quibble. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you so much for taking a look @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007

Sorry, I missed this nom while on Wiki-break! Source review: Passed

  • Reliable for what is being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks all looked good.
  • Support nice work! I can't find anything to improve. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the format and the source review @Gonzo fan2007! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

  • All images relevant to the article
  • All images properly captioned
  • All images have alt text
  • All images either under PD or an appropriate license (AGF on self-published sources).

Support on images. Thanks for your work as always, and congratulations on completing (upon promotion of this list) a Triple Crown and a featured topic @Hey man im josh! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review and the congratulations @Staraction! Unfortunately I fear that a featured topic may not count in place of a good topic, so my hopes of a Triple Crown may be gone! Unless someone gets back to me on my inquiry. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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, 10 August 2024 (UTC) [33].

2018 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

In the spirit of the upcoming Olympics, I started to working on this and it's actually my second non-American football related list nomination ever. It's based on 2022 Winter Olympics medal table, which was promoted May 14, 2023. As always, I will do my best to quickly respond to and address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Images review by Staraction

  • Two images (the ones not in the infobox) require alt text
  • All images are relevant to the article
  • All images are appropriately licensed (AGF on self-published works)
  • All images are captioned appropriately

Thanks for your work as always! Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Rookie move josh, rookie move. Thanks for catching @Staraction! I've made the changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Four new disciplines in existing sports were introduced to the Winter Olympic Games program in Pyeongchang, including" - the use of "including" implies that the examples listed are going to be a subset of the total but in fact all four are listed, so I would replace "including" with a simple colon
  • "Athletes from Germany and Norway tied [...] tying the record" - maybe change the second one to "equalling" to avoid repetition?
  • Freestyle skiing guys image caption doesn't need a full stop
  • Maybe a footnote to explain "Olympic Athletes from Russia"?
  • "After the testing of the B sample that was also positive, the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that they were instituting the formal proceedings" => "After testing of the B sample that was also positive, the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that they were instituting formal proceedings"
  • That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for the helpful review! I've implemented all of your suggestions, except that I tweaked your last suggestion to remove "that" from "that was also positive". Oh, I did also remove the period from Marit Bjørgen's photo, which I'm sure she would appreciate =) Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
MPGuy2824
  • I assume that DSQ means disqualified. It might be worth creating a template for that, with a link to Ejection (sports). If not a template, then at least the link can be considered.
    • Just chipping in to say that IMO I don't think that would be the best link to use in such a template. That article covers the concept of players (in various sports) being required to leave the match/event while it is going on because of an offence. What the "Changes in medal standings" table covers in this and similar articles is competitors who completed the event but then had their results revoked days, weeks, or even months after the event had finished. It's not really the same concept..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yup, it doesn't look like there is a good wikilink for that concept. Given that, Josh can use the {{Abbr}} template. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • You could merge the last two shortish paragraphs of the lead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    I've added the abbreviation template, that's a good call on that. I don't loooove merging those last two paragraphs, as they do feel a bit disconnected, but I also think it's a bit off to have those two sentences as their own paragraph, so I've combined them. Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments and citation check from Arconning

  • Caption in image: Marit Bjørgen (pictured) won five medals at the 2018 Winter Olympics.
  • The caption in the image of the world map doesn't need a full stop.
  • Ties are usually mentioned in the medal table section of the article, based on other FLs of medal tables (to retain consistency).
  • Could mention the sport where Hungary won their first gold.
  • Will get to the source review tomorrow, just claiming it in advance. Arconning (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    Hey @Arconning. I've made the changes to the image captions. I also expanded the sentence to call out the event for Hungary. As for the ties, I actually believe the mention that countries are sorted alphabetically if they're tied to be redundant. I don't believe there's really any other method we'd use to sort them in a tie, is there? In regards to Hungary's competition, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  1. COC - Reliable, though just wondering why the date's August 10, 2011?
  2. IOC - Reliable
  3. Reuters - Reliable
  4. CNN - Reliable
  5. BBC Sport - Reliable
  6. IOC - Reliable
  7. NBC Olympics - Reliable
  8. The Guardian - Reliable
  9. NYT - Reliable
  10. Yahoo! - Reliable
  11. AP - Reliable
  12. BBC - Reliable
  13. IOC - Reliable
  14. ESPN - Reliable
  15. New Zealand Herald - Reliable
  16. POCOG - Reliable
  17. IOC - Reliable, but I'm just wondering what is this used for? If it's to be kept, change the hyphen in the title to an endash.
  18. The Guardian - Reliable
  19. Daily Mirror - A bit dodgy per WP:RSPSS, but the topic isn't contentious so I'm doing a conditional pass on this one.
  20. ESPN - Reliable
  21. IOC - Reliable
  22. CBC AP - Reliable
  23. Telegraph - Reliable
  24. Inside the Games - Reliable
  25. CAS - Reliable
  26. BBC - Reliable
  27. IOC - Reliable
  • @Hey man im josh If it's part of the criteria, mentions in sources citing the International Olympic Committee, Canadian Olympic Committee, and POCOG, should be non-italicized. Also refs 8, 18, 21, and 22 could use archive links. If not, then I think it's good for me. Arconning (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Ref 1 – Absolutely a mistake. I just tested it in my sandbox to see how I made this mistake and it turns out the autofill from RefToolbar filled in the date as August 10, 2011. I didn't expect there to be a date, so I didn't click the "Show/hide extra fields" button. I missed that and now been removed, good catch!
    • Ref 17 – I did so to reinforce that the sorting method wasn't just a one time thing. In hindsight, this is definitely overkill and unnecessary. Ref 16 is literally perfect for verifying that. I've removed this ref.
    • Archive links – All have been archived. I had to wait a little bit after triggering the archiving on them, but they're all there now.
    • Italics – Why? My understanding is it doesn't particularly matter so long as it's consistent. As far as I'm aware, and I'd absolutely appreciate being corrected if I've misunderstood, it has nothing to do with the titles of the articles themselves, it's just the style of the type of citation.
    @Arconning: Thank you so much for the source review! I hope I've addressed all of your concerns and, if not, I do intend to iron the rest out after your response. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Support, nice work!! Arconning (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks so much! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Birdienest81

  • As the editor who promoted the 2022 Winter Olympics medal table to featured list status, I think you should also add a table of official changes in medal standings by country similar to the ones in 1984 Summer, 2012, and 2020 ones.
  • Since the parent article 2018 Winter Olympics uses a day-month-year format, all dates indicated in the list should use the DD-MM-YYYY format.
--Birdienest81talk 19:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
While I think the table in this context is useless and adds nothing of value (it was 1 medal taken and 1 given to another), I've added it anyways. I also don't see an issue with the date formatting, as it's consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Birdienest81: Following up to see if the dates are a deal breaker for you. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
On rethink, the dates don't actually matter to me. I've made the change and I hope you'll support this nomination @Birdienest81. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Darn, they haven't been online in five days. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, about the slow response. I'm busy preparing for a camping trip, but yes, it's all good. So, I'll give it a support. Birdienest81talk 08:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 13:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC) [34].

1964 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As a follow up to my nomination of the 2018 Winter Olympics medal table, I decided I wanted to complete a Summer Olympics medal table as well. It's based on other Summer Olympics medal tables that have also been promoted to featured list status, as well as the feedback provided at the other Summer Olympics medal table nomination. As always, I will do my best to quickly respond to and address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Arconning

  • "With 18 total Olympic medals, Latynin", should be Latynina.
  • "for most Olympic medals," could be reworded as "for the most Olympic medals for an individual".
  • "She also became, and still is, the record holder for most gold and total Olympic medals by a female athlete.", would this need an "As of,..."?
  • The caption in the image should probably specify "at these games", as "competing athlete" could probably sound like an active athlete.
  • Could add a footnote explaining "United Team of Germany".

Here are my comments, ping me once you're done! Arconning (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  • "With 18 total Olympic medals, Latynin", should be Latynina. – D'oh... fixed.
  • "for most Olympic medals," could be reworded as "for the most Olympic medals for an individual". – Ehhh, I felt it was implied, but I've tweaked it.
  • "She also became, and still is, the record holder for most gold and total Olympic medals by a female athlete.", would this need an "As of,..."? – Do we? I would think that's only really necessary if there's frequent changes in the rankings. I don't love the idea of this having to be updated every year, as opposed to being updated as necessary.
  • The caption in the image should probably specify "at these games", as "competing athlete" could probably sound like an active athlete. – I personally don't read it this way. I think it's clear enough based on the context of "... at the 1964 Summer Olympics, the most of any competing athlete"
  • Could add a footnote explaining "United Team of Germany". – Done.
I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. Thank you so much for the review @Arconning! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Support, good luck! Arconning (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

The only thing I can suggest is changing "over Taiwan's (Republic of China) participation" to "over the participation of Taiwan (Republic of China)", which just seems to read a bit more elegantly to me....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey Chris, an IP actually added the names in brackets, which I felt were unnecessary and also interrupted the flow. I've also implemented your wording, which is definitely more elegant. Thank you very much for taking a look and providing feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

NØ

Source review - pass
  • The sources all look reliable for the purposes they are used and the references are filled out with the necessary details. Spotchecks not done but I could upon request.
Image review - pass
  • The source link for the file works, and since it ought to have been taken in 1964 (over 60 years ago), the copyright information at the file page applies and makes sense.
Overall, support on those and the prose as well. No issues there.--NØ 19:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the review! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
EN-Jungwon

* "relating to the history of the Green Bay Packers, an American football in the National Football League (NFL)". Is this meant to say an American football team

  • There is a stray curly bracket in the table "17}"

-- EN-Jungwon 10:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: I think this was meant as a reply to another nomination? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh, now that's embarrassing. Yep this was meant for Packers Heritage Trail. I had both nomination pages open and didn't look at the title before adding my comments. I have stricken my comments. Now I'll definitely come back and review this list too. Again sorry for the confusion. -- EN-Jungwon 11:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@EN-Jungwon: No worries at all! I happened to have reviewed the exact same list and knew exactly what you were talking about, gave me a good laugh :P Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Ref 26 the title has changed
Reference formatting is consistent. Link checker shows no issues. -- EN-Jungwon 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey @EN-Jungwon: Sorry for the delay in responding. I've updated the title of the article, and updated the date of the archive. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Support -- EN-Jungwon 23:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [35].

2016 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite excited to present my third Olympic medal table nomination, which is based largely on other recent nominations, such as 2020 Summer Olympics medal table, 1964 Summer Olympics medal table, and 2018 Winter Olympics medal table. I believe it meets all of our criteria and, as always, I will do my best to respond quickly and address any and all feedback or concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • Phelps image caption needs a full stop
  • "due to medals reallocation" => "due to medal reallocation"
  • CAS should be written in full
  • "The IOC has not yet redistributed the medals" - should be medal singular as this cell only relates to one DQ
  • You mention Nijat Rahimov's DQ and the lack of reallocation of the medal to date in the prose, but not the other similar case......?
  • "an 87th country was later awarded a medal at the 2008 Olympics, tying the record" - should probably also mention in this section that the figure for 2016 subsequently went down to 86 therefore the 2008 games now hold the record outright
  • That's all I got - great work as ever, Josh! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Phelps image caption needs a full stop – Done.
  • Example text – Done.
  • CAS should be written in full –
  • "The IOC has not yet redistributed the medals" - should be medal singular as this cell only relates to one DQ – Done. I was thinking "medals" because, if redistributed, the gold would go to second, the silver would go to... well... the thid place person is under investigation, but the idea is it would go to them, and so on. Hence, I was thinking of multiple reallocations. Never the less, for the time being, singular actually makes sense.
  • You mention Nijat Rahimov's DQ and the lack of reallocation of the medal to date in the prose, but not the other similar case......? – I've converted it to a note now, but
  • "an 87th country was later awarded a medal at the 2008 Olympics, tying the record" - should probably also mention in this section that the figure for 2016 subsequently went down to 86 therefore the 2008 games now hold the record outright – I've added to the note, I hope it makes things more clear.
Thanks so much for the feedback @ChrisTheDude!! I very much appreciate it and I hope I've addressed all of your points. Please do let me know if I can do better. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    Hey @ChrisTheDude, sorry, just to follow up on this... Which version is correct? You asked me to remove a full stop from an image at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2018 Winter Olympics medal table/archive1, but you asked me to add it in this case. Both captions, the other being at 2018 Winter Olympics medal table, are formatted the same way except for the full stop. Just seeking clarity so that I can be consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Image captions that are a complete sentence need a full stop e.g. "Dave Smith won the most medals at the 2064 Olympics." I misread the image caption on the 2018 article and thought it wasn't a complete sentence so didn't need one, turns out I was wrong on that. But, in short: complete sentence needs one, sentence fragment doesn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I'll do a source review, and add in any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Only the SB Nation source is concerning. Nothing in my general comments that is a blocker. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

  • Is the use of SB Nation appropriate, given the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#SB_Nation?
  • Everything else looks like a suitable source for the info supported.
  • I didn't see any issues with citation formatting.
  • Spot checks on "On 18 August 2016, Kyrgyz weightlifter Izzat Artykov was stripped of his bronze medal in the men's 69 kg event after testing positive for strychnine. Luis Javier Mosquera of Colombia, who had been the fourth-place finisher before Artykov's disqualification, was moved into third place" - no issues
  • Spot checks on "On 8 December 2016, the CAS disqualified weightlifter Gabriel Sîncrăian of Romania after he tested positive for exogenous testosterone and boxer Misha Aloian of Russia after he tested positive for tuaminoheptane. In the men's 85 kg weightlifting event Denis Ulanov of Kazakhstan was moved into third place. In the men's flyweight (52 kg) boxing event Yoel Finol of Venezuela was moved into second place; the released bronze medal has not been awarded to anyone." - no issues.
  • Spot check on "Serghei Tarnovschi of Moldova was stripped of his bronze medal in the men's C-1 1000 metres canoeing event after testing positive for GHRP-2, a growth hormone-releasing peptide." - no issues

General comments

  • "The golds are purer than any presented at all preceding Olympics." - "The golds were... " for consistency? Although I suppose "are" is true.
  • I like "the mint that minted" but you may want to reword to avoid repetition.
Hey @BennyOnTheLoose, I'm so sorry I missed your review!!! I never would have let this go long without response had I realized sooner. Anyways...
SB Nation discussions are often tainted by the fact people widely evaluate the parent site, SB Nation, along with its hundred of sub sites (typically one for every professional team). Their main site is actually typically pretty okay and doesn't *usually* have anything significantly wrong with it. That's, in my opinion, the reason why we haven't moved to actually placing them in the unreliable source category. For that specific usage of the reference, the only thing that it's verifying is the number of people that were a part of the team. I've had a real tough time verifying how many people were on the team, and it felt relevant to call out the fact that everyone that's "independent" in that context was actually from Kuwait. Unfortinately... 2016_Summer_Olympics#Number_of_athletes_by_National_Olympic_Committee was of no help since it's unreferenced.
As for the other two suggestions, I've made relevant changes. Thanks so much for your review! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007

  • A total of 11,238 -> deleting "A total of" would be more concise
  • Overall, 87 teams -> same thing with "overall"
  • Host country Brazil won seven gold medals, their most at any single Summer Olympics I often try to avoid sentences that may go out of date. I will also note that in 2020 they won 7 gold again. Maybe clarify or rewrite to state that the total of 7 was the most up to that point.
  • winning 46 gold and 121 total medals respectively. -> The United States led the medal table both in number of gold medals won and in overall medals, winning 46 and 121 respectively. "Respectively" means that you are listing off totals from the previous phrasing, so no need to repeat.

Just a few comments for now. Ill come back later for more. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  • The design for the Olympic medals for the 2016 Summer Olympics featured the largest medals in terms of diameter of any medal presented at the Olympics. --> The 2016 Summer Olympic medals were the largest in history. Ok, I'm not sure what exactly to change this too. I just wanted to show that the sentence is overly complicated. "Olympics" is said 3 times, "medals" is said 3 times, and I can't think of any other way that a circle would be measured other than diameter. Recommend really tightening up.
  • Much of the copper used in minting the bronze medals came from recycling waste from the mint itself. "Much of" doesn't equate to 40%, per the source. I would rephrase to "a little less than half" or something more accurate. I also think this strays a little in CLOP territory:
    • Source: And 40 per cent of the copper used in the bronze medals came from waste at the Mint itself.
    • Article: Much of the copper used in minting the bronze medals came from recycling waste from the mint itself.
    • Recommendation: Just under half of the copper used in the bronze medals was recycled from normal operations at the Brazilian Mint. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • You state that the "obverse" side is Nike, while the source says the "reverse" side. I think you mean reverse.

That's all I got hey man im josh. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Gonzo fan2007, I'm sorry I missed your comments until now! I'm just about done for the day so I'll make sure this is all addressed tomorrow. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Gonzo fan2007, is "respectively" really meant to be left out? I find it more confusing to say "winning 46 and 121" and stopping there. I believe I've addressed everything else that you've brought up though and I very much appreciate your feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I mean that repeating "medals" isn't needed. So you can just say winning 46 and 121 respectively.. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: Gotcha, done! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Support nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 13:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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) 12:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC) [36].

1996 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC) and Birdienest81

This is both mine and Birdienest81's fourth nomination related to the Olympic medal tables, though we both each did three separately before collaborating on this list (making this #7 that we've worked to help promote cumulatively). We believe it meets all the relevant criteria and we're hoping for this to be #16 (of 30) for the Summer Olympics medal tables to reach featured list status. We will do our best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns and feedback that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

  • Amy Van Dyken (pictured) won four gold medals at the 1996 Summer Olympics, the most of any competing athlete - Is it really necessary to say that she's pictured? I mean, there's only one person there, I think it's pretty obvious.
  • with 53 of them won at least one gold medal - Maybe "winning"?
  • Would it be worth explaining in a note why those editions were boycotted?
  • In addition, she also - Isn't it a bit redundant to say both "In addition" and "also"?
  • Maybe link to Great Britain at the 1996 Summer Olympics in the mention on Steve Redgrave's image's caption?

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: I've implemented all of your suggestions except for one. I could try to explain in a note about the boycotts that happened, but I'm not sure if it properly does it justice. In short, I'm not sure it's a great idea to try to shove so much information into a note and speak about the segregation/apartheid issues that led to a boycott or the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott because I don't think it does it justice or adds much to the article, since it would end up being a very long note for a singular sentence. However, if you feel strongly, I'll consider it further. There's also List of Olympic Games boycotts. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Fair point. I wouldn't expect an in-depth explanation of what the boycotts were about and how they unfolded, but I think it would be useful to have a note saying the Olympics were boycotted for several reasons from 1976 through to 1988 and a link to that list. Don't you think? Thank you for addressing the other points. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@Alavense: I had been giving it some thought, and I think I was overthinking how to properly do a note for this. I've added a wikilink that I hope addresses your comment appropriately. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
It works for me. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • Agree with all of the above, plus.....
  • "Athletes from the host nation of United States" => "Athletes from the host nation of the United States"....?
  • "Additionally, in the men's horitzontal bars" - penultimate word is spelt incorrectly
  • Images beside the table should have their size set to "upright"
  • Is it relevant to this article that Shannon Miller had also won medals four years earlier (as mentioned in her image caption)? Other people pictured also had great achievements outwith these games e.g. Steve Redgrave is the only man in history to have won gold medals at five different Olympic Games in an endurance sport, but you don't mention it in their image captions.....
  • "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals at the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events." => "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals in the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events."
  • That's it, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    • "Athletes from the host nation of United States" -> "Athletes from the host nation of the United States"....? – Fixed
    • "Additionally, in the men's horitzontal bars" - penultimate word is spelt incorrectly – Fixed
    • Images beside the table should have their size set to "upright" – Set with a factor of 1.3, hope that's appropriate.
    • Is it relevant to this article that Shannon Miller had also won medals four years earlier (as mentioned in her image caption)? Other people pictured also had great achievements outwith these games e.g. Steve Redgrave is the only man in history to have won gold medals at five different Olympic Games in an endurance sport, but you don't mention it in their image captions..... – I could use a bit more feedback on this one, but I included it because of the medals in her hand in the image. I felt it that she won all of those medals at the 1996 games based on the image and I wanted to clarify
    • "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals at the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events." -> "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals in the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events." – Fixed
    As always, thanks for the feedback Chris. A little sloppier than I usually like it to be, so I'll be more careful with my next nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment: I'm pretty certain the table requires an inline citation at the top to verify the content in it EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    I'm embarrassed that I missed that @EnthusiastWorld37, so I very much appreciate you pointing this out to me. I'm quite disappointed with myself for the number of things called out that I shouldn't have missed, but it is what it is. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    Have now conducted a fuller review of the list and I believe it meets the criteria and so I Support its promotion EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for the review! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Matthewrb

  • The short description for the article is currently "Award" - I might recommend none for this article since the title is descriptive.
  • The photo of Amy Van Dyken needs alt text per MOS:ALT.
  • I'm not sure why the last opening paragraph ends with ",." - is there a phrase missing there?
  • I did a spot check of the metal numbers in the table and saw no problems.
  • I also did a spot check of the citations and saw no concerns.

If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my List of Apollo missions FLC down below. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 21:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback @Matthewrb, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Support, well done! ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay throughout, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 01:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 6 October 2024 (UTC) [37].

1994 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This is my fifth Olympics medal table list and is it the only winter medal table between 1972 and 2022 which is not already featured. As always, I will do my best to respond in a timely manner and to address any and all concerns or comments that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

  • 1,737 athletes - MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure".
  • Due to scheduling changes made in 1986, with the intent to have the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics held in different years, this was the first time the Winter games were held in a different year than the Summer Olympics - That reads a bit repetitive.
  • the only time that the Winter Olympics took place two years after the previous one - Shouldn't it be ones.
  • The link to the article about the dissolution of the Soviet Union should be included the first time it's mentioned, not the second.
  • Norweigen - Norwegian?
  • Are there no more images that could be included?

That's what I saw, Hey man im josh. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review @Alavense!
  • 1,737 athletes - MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure". – Blech, well this conflicts with feedback I received at the 2016 Summer Olympics medal table nomination. Not entirely sure which would be best, any thoughts on whether you're comfortable with the numbers at the beginning, or should I ping Gonzo to iron this out a bit more?
  • I don't think an A total of would do much harm, because the way the sentence is currently written collides with what MOS says. Alavense (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Hey Gonzo_fan2007, just pinging you about the above because I'm aiming for consistency in these lists. Is there a counter argument to be made about this portion? Or would you be okay with me preceding "x athletes..." with "A total of" again? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • The MOS here isn't definitive. Avoiding something doesn't mean you can't do it. I think for a large number, there is no issue with starting the sentence with that number. That said, I will defer to whatever you all decide. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Due to scheduling changes made in 1986, with the intent to have the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics held in different years, this was the first time the Winter games were held in a different year than the Summer Olympics - That reads a bit repetitive. – Do you have any recommendations on how to refactor to highlight that the Olympics were held in the same year prior to this? I wanted to make that clear and despite not totally loving the language, I felt this was the best I could come up with.
  • I think you should say that the 1994 edition of the Winter Olympics was held only two years after the previous one. And maybe that would also help avoid the reiteration. Alavense (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Due to scheduling changes made in 1986, with the intent to have the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics held in different years, this was the first time the Winter games were held in a different year than the Summer Olympics, and the only time that the Winter Olympics took place two years after the previous one.
  • Due to scheduling changes made in 1986, with the intent to begin holding the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics in different years for the first time and moving forward, the Winter Olympics took place only two years after the previous one.
  • Thanks for pushing me on the wording. I think this phrasing is closer to what's ideal, but could possibly use more work. Any thoughts on the changes? I feel it's more concise but maybe a bit choppy. The changes happened in 1986, but I also want to highlight this is the first time in a way as I feel the first Olympic Games not held in the same year as another is a noteworthy fact. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Due to scheduling changes made in 1986 with the intent to begin holding the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics in different years for the first time and moving forward, this edition of the Winter Olympics took place only two years after the previous one.
Do you like it this way, Hey man im josh? I think you could do without the first comma. And the way you worded it now, it's pretty clear that these Games being held only was an odd one out. Alavense (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I like that. I've made the changes based on your suggestion @Alavense. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • the only time that the Winter Olympics took place two years after the previous one - Shouldn't it be ones. – Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but despite "Olympics" being plural, I believe it's still treated as singular when referring to the event, hence the usage of "one" instead of "ones". I do hope to be corrected, because honestly, I'm not sure now.
  • I'm not sure, either, but you do say The 1994 Winter Olympics [...] were at the beginning of the list, though. Alavense (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Good point, I think you're right after sleeping on it and reading this. Fixed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • The link to the article about the dissolution of the Soviet Union should be included the first time it's mentioned, not the second. – Booo, you're right, I just really like that the wikilinked portion was exactly the title of the article. Oh well, you're right, fixed.
  • I removed the double [[.
  • Norweigen - Norwegian? – Fixed.
  • Are there no more images that could be included? – I looked for...
    • First medalist for each country mentioned in the league
    • First gold medalist for each country mentioned in the lead
    • Leaders in gold medals
    • Leaders in overall medals (used)
In those, there was an image of Manuela Di Centa, which appeared to be significantly after the age she competed at. Not that that's necessarily a problem, but I feel the size of the image (165 x 228 pixels / 67 KB) made it too small to add anywhere but her article. Others either did not have an image or their image was a stamp / memorialization of the person by the country. Because of this, I felt it best to just use the one image, though believe me, I absolutely did look for relevant images that weren't just "this person won a medal at the games!"
  • No problem, then. Nobody can say that you didn't try. :) Alavense (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again for the review. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I replied above, Hey man im josh. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Alright, so that should be everything except for the top two points now Alavense. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Nice work, Hey man im josh. Please keep these lists coming! :) I'll support right away, although it would be nice to reach an agreement, so to speak, with Gonzo and see which one's the lesser of two evils, whether to use A total of or to ignore the MOS for once. Kind regards and nice work, Alavense (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely, I'm all for consistency and I totally agree. Thank you for the review, keep your awesome reviews coming @Alavense! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "this edition of the Winter Olympics took place only two years after the previous ones" - this doesn't really work, because you use "this edition" (singular) but then say it took place two years after "the previous ones" (plural), which makes it sound like multiple editions took place in 1992. Maybe "this edition of the Winter Olympics took place only two years after the previous event".....?
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    That is better, thank you @ChrisTheDude, done! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks so much for your review @Dank! I very much appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, anytime. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    Hey man im josh, check with PresN or Giants2008 regarding MOS:NUMNOTES (specifically, avoiding a numeral at the beginning of a sentence). I don't know if we handle these things differently at FLC, but if so, that would surprise me a little. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Matthewrb

  • The short description for the article is currently "Award" - I might recommend none for this article since the title is descriptive.
  • I did a spot check of the medal totals and they look good.
  • I did a spot check of the sources and they look good.

Support ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look over the list @Matthewrb, I've fixed the short description. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Source review – The link-checker tool shows no problems, and reliability and formatting of the sources both look okay. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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) 00:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [38].

List of Detroit Lions Pro Bowl selections

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The Pro Bowl is the National Football League's version of an all-star game, and an accolade that's very often discussed when comparing players and considering their candidacy for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I'm excited to nominate this list in hopes it'll be my sixth Detroit Lions featured list. It's based on List of Green Bay Packers Pro Bowl selections, which was promoted in March of this year. Please let me know if there are any issues or concerns and I'll do my best to respond in a timely manner. Thank you in advance to anybody willing to review or provide any feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Support I often wonder what would have happened if we had drafted Barry Sanders instead of Tony Mandarich. This list reminded me :( As the originator of the Packers companion list, I don't see any issues. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review @Gonzo fan2007 and the original that I based this off! If you had drafted Barry... he might be universally recognized as the GOAT like he should be and he might not have retired early lol. You also wouldn't be able to point out that people who have a claim for the best peak at their positions (Barry and Calvin Johnson) both retired with plenty left in the tank (quietly sobs in Lions fandom before remembering the current team's trajectory). Hey man im josh (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

  • MOS:GEOLINK for Detroit, Michigan.
  • The Lions compete in the National Football League (NFL) as a member - Would it be better to say as members?
  • Five of these exhibition games were played, with the last occurring after the 1942 NFL season before the NFL reduced the number of teams and games in the season due to players serving in World War II - I think a comma between season and before would make it clearer?
  • following the 1950 NFL season. From the 1950 season - A bit repetitive. Maybe something like From that season?
  • or the fact they are playing - or the fact that they are playing?
  • If a Pro Bowl selectee ... alternates are named in the players' place - Two things: 1) it should be in the player's place; and 2) how many alternates are named in one player's place? If it's only one, then it should be an alternate is named in the player's place. If that's the case, have a look at the following sentence as well.
  • selections with 10, while Yale Lary (nine selections), and Lou Creekmur (eight selections) round out the top four - 9 selections and 8 selections, as per MOS:NUMNOTES.
  • Regarding the images, I guess it would be nice to have links to the playing positions, but I don't think it's possible for most of the cases, as including them would create seas of blue...
  • I think it would be better to be consistent and always state when each picture was taken, as long as it's possible and as long as the picture is not contemporary to the decade alongside which it's included. Jason Hanson, for instance.

That's what I saw, Hey man im josh. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding @Alavense, I'm back to my regular activity now and will be responding in a much more timely manner.
  • I've applied the MOS:GEOLINK fix to all of the Detroit Lions articles I've worked on.
  • The Lions compete in the National Football League (NFL) as a member - Would it be better to say as members? – I don't think so in this case as the team itself is a singular entity.
  • Five of these exhibition games were played, with the last occurring after the 1942 NFL season before the NFL reduced the number of teams and games in the season due to players serving in World War II - I think a comma between season and before would make it clearer? – Done.
  • following the 1950 NFL season. From the 1950 season - A bit repetitive. Maybe something like From that season? – While I agree it's a bit repetitive, I'm a bit hesitant because I want to be absolutely clear in the wording, and with all the years thrown out it might get a bit confusing if not clearly stated in my opinion.
  • or the fact they are playing - or the fact that they are playing? – Done.
  • If a Pro Bowl selectee ... alternates are named in the players' place - Two things: 1) it should be in the player's place; and 2) how many alternates are named in one player's place? If it's only one, then it should be an alternate is named in the player's place. If that's the case, have a look at the following sentence as well. – Only one alternate player replaces each selectee. I believe I've addressed this by changing the text to ...an alternate is named in the player's place. Alternate players are still considered official Pro Bowl selectees.
  • selections with 10, while Yale Lary (nine selections), and Lou Creekmur (eight selections) round out the top four - 9 selections and 8 selections, as per MOS:NUMNOTES. – I can't recall which of my past FLCs this has come up in, but mentally I had a bit of an understanding that >10, use digits, and less than 10 use words. Nevertheless, I've made those changes, and I hope I can sort out why I had this thought in my head.
  • Regarding the images, I guess it would be nice to have links to the playing positions, but I don't think it's possible for most of the cases, as including them would create seas of blue... – I agree, it's a problem with sea of blue in my experience, and the terms are already included in the table when necessary, except for the two examples highlighted below by ChrisTheDude, which have been addressed.
  • I think it would be better to be consistent and always state when each picture was taken, as long as it's possible and as long as the picture is not contemporary to the decade alongside which it's included. Jason Hanson, for instance. – I responded to a point about this same thing at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Detroit Lions draft picks (1970–present)/archive1, in which I stated I typically only did this for instances where an image shows a person who's not currently in playing shape/attire. Unfortunately it's difficult to determine the year in a lot of instances. If I had it my way, it would be players in Lions gear the entire way through with no years being necessary to state. But I felt it better to include images of the players in their 60s as opposed to vast parts with no images at all. In short, I don't think it's quite necessary to add this information if it's not outside the realm of when they may have been playing.
I hope that addresses everything. Thank you so much for taking the time to review this nomination! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. I'm happy with all of them. Support. Alavense (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The Lions first selections " => "The Lions' first selections "
  • Some terms in image captions would benefit from links: return specialist, sack
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry for the delay @ChrisTheDude, I'm back to my regular activity now and I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [39].

List of Detroit Lions NFL All-Decade Team selections

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Another Detroit Lions list, which I hope will be my seventh Detroit Lions featured list. NFL All-Decade Teams are meant to represent the best players in each decade. It's a significant accolade which is weighted fairly heavily when considering a player's candidacy for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. It's based on List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Decade Team selections, which was promoted on September 10th of this year. Please let me know if there are any issues or concerns and I'll do my best to respond in a timely manner. Thank you in advance to anybody willing to review or provide any feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007

  • The most recent Lions selections were for the 2010s Team: Calvin Johnson and Ndamukong Suh. --> The most recent Lions' selections were Calvin Johnson and Ndamukong Suh as part of the 2010s Team.

Support That's all I got Hey man im josh. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the base that I built this on, thanks for taking a look, and thanks for the helpful feedback as always @Gonzo fan2007! Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "did change from decade-to-decade" => "did change from decade to decade"
  • "TThe most recent Lions' selections" - there's a stray extra T at the start. Also I think "The Lions' most recent selections" would read more naturally
  • That's it I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    Hey @ChrisTheDude, I've made the changes. Thanks so much for looking this over for me! Hey man im josh (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

  • The second lead paragraph is pretty chunky; consider splitting it.
  • The tenses in this paragraph are slightly confusing, in switching from past to present: (" Each team was selected by the Pro Football Hall of Fame Selection Committee, which is primarily made up of national sportswriters. The Selection Committee is asked...") I would suggest changing the "was selected" to "has been selected" or something similar.
  • "to develop the team" I'm not sure "develop" is the right word for a selection from scratch, maybe "construct"?
  • Are we sure that "team" should be capitalised e.g. in "2010s Team"?
  • "although starting with the 2010s Team" implies that this will become a pattern, but CRYSTALBALL applies.
  • "although standard offensive, defensive and special teams positions were always included, the position names, types of positions and the number of positions did change from decade to decade" again the tenses are a bit odd, would suggest changing to "have always been included" and "have changed".
  • Mind glossing what the "Pride of the Lions" is?
  • If you have Calvin Johnson as the lead image, you might as well have Ndamukong Suh too ({{multiple image}} may be helpful here). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review @AirshipJungleman29!
    • The second lead paragraph is pretty chunky; consider splitting it. – Split, hope that's a good spot.
    • The tenses in this paragraph are slightly confusing, in switching from past to present: (" Each team was selected by the Pro Football Hall of Fame Selection Committee, which is primarily made up of national sportswriters. The Selection Committee is asked...") I would suggest changing the "was selected" to "has been selected" or something similar. – I went with "has been selected", you're right about the tenses there.
    • "to develop the team" I'm not sure "develop" is the right word for a selection from scratch, maybe "construct"? – I like that, done.
    • Are we sure that "team" should be capitalised e.g. in "2010s Team"? – Honestly I'm not. I followed the capitalization used by Gonzo fan2007 on List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Decade Team selections. I recognize that sometimes a shorter form of a name may maintain capitalization of the full name, but I'm not an expert at when to use this. I've pinged Gonzo in an effort to hear whether they believe it should be and so that we can maintain consistency.
    • "although starting with the 2010s Team" implies that this will become a pattern, but CRYSTALBALL applies. – Good point, I've changed it to just "... whereas the 2010s Team did not make this distinction."
    • "although standard offensive, defensive and special teams positions were always included, the position names, types of positions and the number of positions did change from decade to decade" again the tenses are a bit odd, would suggest changing to "have always been included" and "have changed". – Damn, yeah, you're right. Changed to "While standard offensive, defensive, and special teams positions have always included, the position names, types of positions, and the number of positions have changed from decade to decade".
    • Mind glossing what the "Pride of the Lions" is? – I added ", a permanent display at Ford Field meant to honor the team's greatest players." with a reference, I hope this is concise and informative enough.
    • If you have Calvin Johnson as the lead image, you might as well have Ndamukong Suh too ( may be helpful here – While there were two selections to the recent team, I chose Calvin Johnson because he's been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame and Pride of the Lions. I'm open to including Suh, but I think by doing so I push the images in the team selections down further than they should be, which then pushes into the see also section for me.
    This was a lot of great feedback, I'm grateful you took the time to provide this review and I hope I've addressed all of your points. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    Support on prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Elias

Hey man im elias :) As I said on WP:DISCORD I am volunteering to review this FLC, the first of yours I have reviewed, based primarily on how concise the prose is. In celebration, have a hot dog 🌭

  • "in recognition of the 50th anniversary" we can shorten to "to recognize the 50th anniversary"
  • "history of the league" -> "league's history"
  • "have always included, the position names, types of positions, and the number of positions" what is the first comma supposed to be doing there ?
  • "As an example, for the 2010s Team, due to its greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included and a new "flex" offensive position was added" that is a mouthful. Perhaps "For example, due to greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included for the 2010s team and a new "flex" offensive position was instead added." Or you can split that into two sentences, which arguably would make this more readable
  • "and both made" I don't think the "both" is necessary

That's all from me @Hey man im josh. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 04:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review @PSA!
  • "in recognition of the 50th anniversary" we can shorten to "to recognize the 50th anniversary" – I'm having difficult explaining why I think the first option is better. It would make it shorter, but I think it flows better with this wording instead.
  • "history of the league" -> "league's history" – I chose "history of the league" as the phrasing to better match the target, History of the National Football League.
  • "have always included, the position names, types of positions, and the number of positions" what is the first comma supposed to be doing there ? – Well you see the purpose of that comma was to help me realize I missed a word! Changed to "have always been included..." which makes the usage of the comma in that context make more sense.
    • That makes more sense
  • "As an example, for the 2010s Team, due to its greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included and a new "flex" offensive position was added" that is a mouthful. Perhaps "For example, due to greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included for the 2010s team and a new "flex" offensive position was instead added." Or you can split that into two sentences, which arguably would make this more readable – I changed it to "For example, due to its greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included for the 2010s team and a new "flex" offensive position was added instead.", hope this is satisfactory.
  • "and both made" I don't think the "both" is necessary – Ehhh, I'm iffy on this, how strongly do you feel? I do feel like while it should obviously be inferred that they [both] made the 1950s team, I think it's more clear, direct, and less ambiguous. I'm not married to the phrasing though.
    • My experience is limited to FAC and GAN where I've been acclimated to keeping phrases as concise as possible wherever applicable, which contextualizes my comment. In this case, though, both verbiages are valid, and I want to avoid splitting hairs over what's essentially one word
Let me know your thoughts on the parts I didn't implement. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Following up @PSA. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Hey man im josh, and thanks for your patience. I'm still getting into the swing of things with FLC, which may slightly affect the quality of my comments. Your responses were thoughtful and sufficient enough; I won't prod on the ones that were stylistic-preference in retrospect. A support from me Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 01:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [40].

1932 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This is Olympic medal table #10 for me (Summer Games nom #7). It was a relatively boring / run of the mill games, with nothing much of note happening when considering the countries/teams themselves. As always, I will do my best to respond to all comments as quickly as possible, and I appreciate any and all feedback that is given. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

  • For once the correct date formatting is used[Joke], on a serious note data formatting is mostly consistant with a few stray DMY's and slash dates
  • Spot checks don't find anything
  • Linking is constant
  • Note that the lead image is from 1929
  • Images are from commons
  • Alt text is present
That's what I found source wise ping me when done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant: Thank you very much for the review, but I'm not actually seeing any issues in the displayed references. Technically speaking, we don't need to make sure the dates used in references adhere to the format so long as the relevant {{Use mdy dates}} templates is used, which formats the dates properly for the references. With that said, I ran it against anyways, because I actually do prefer that the dates in the references match what the output is showing.
Just for clarity though, since you mention spot checks, is this considered a source review as well? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant: For full transparency, I wanted to note that I've added a few more references, specifically to note that there were not medals awarded in some events and to note a few events not classified as sports (last two sentences of lead and the paragraph above the medal table). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • "American swimmer Helene Madison won three golds medals" - there's a stray "s" in there
  • That's all I could find! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
    Fixed, thanks for the catch @ChrisTheDude! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Review by SafariScribe

I will do the source review.Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

There was already one done. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
You're welcome of course to do your own source review, or this could use another general review of some kind @SafariScribe. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Arconning

  • Maybe mention the amount of podium sweeps a country had at these games. The United States had multiple so it could be worth a mention, though it's no biggie if not.
  • An image of Jānis Daliņš (the first Olympic medalist for Latvia's team) could be used to further illustrate the article.
  • Definitely mention events that were held though no medals were awarded. One of the equestrian events were nullified thus resulting in no medals being awarded (could add an explanation to that), and another one resulted in no bronze medal being awarded as only two teams completed the source. This could probably be inserted within the "Medal table" section of the article.
  • Sailing also had one event that did not have a bronze medal awarded, should be mentioned.
    Hey @Arconning, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, except for adding the podium sweeps. I don't see an ideal place to shoehorn that information in and I think it would end up clunky in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
    Support per comments! Arconning (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 23:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [41].

1952 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm excited to say this is Olympic medal table #9 for me (Summer Games nom #6). It's a relatively short nom, but it's interesting in that 12 countries participated for the first name and it was the first time the Chinese NOC competed as the People's Republic of China. As always, I will do my best to respond to all comments as quickly as possible, and I appreciate any and all feedback that is given. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • I would be tempted to join the final one-sentence paragraph of the lead to the one before
  • That's it, I think - great work as ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
    I felt mixed about it, but I said screw it and went ahead and did it. In a way I liked them split because one was about the countries who had success and the following was about the people who had success. But a single sentence shouldn't necessarily be its own paragraph. Sorry for the delay in replying, accidently cleared my watchlist I think. Thanks for the review @ChrisTheDude! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Nina Ponomaryova 1960.jpg - Public Domain
  • File:Asnoldo Devonish 1952 Helsinki.png - Public Domain, source link needs to be fixed.
  • Both images have alt text, suitable captions, and are relevant to the article.
    • Here are my comments! Arconning (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
    What if the source link cannot be fixed because it's gone offline and the archives don't seem to have properly grabbed the picture @Arconning? Pinging uploader @Kingsif. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    Using the archive link should still be acceptable, there’s enough documentation to say the image was there. As I understand it, the only issue as it is for the original link being dead would be WP:V, so effective proof that the link existed is good. Otherwise, you’re looking for an alternative source altogether. Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Hey man im josh, considering archive links have enough documentation that say the image was there... I'll support based on image review. Arconning (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review from Octave

Reviewed special:diff/1274315826

Reliability – one question

  • Britannica articles are used appropriately (Netherlands Antilles in particular seems to be written by SMEs)
  • Wondering if there's a better source than one via the China Internet Information Center, a state-controlled media outlet
  • Other source reliability looks fine

Formatting consistency – clear

  • I believe it's all good here, kudos

Other comments – couple comments

  • Could do with page numbers for the Olympic factsheets?
  • Ref 2: include author
  • Ref 8: include authors
  • Ref 14: incorrect date
  • Ref 17: drop "Factsheet" like you do in other factsheet references
  • Ref 18: if kept, should probably mention it's via China Internet Information Center
  • Ref 19: link Pacific Affairs; specify "Autumn 1985"; would like a more precise page number, 17 pages is a substantial range
  • Ref 27: byline date says a different date; link William Grimes (journalist)

Spotchecks – 25% of sources (round up to 10),

  • Ref 1: pass
  • Ref 5: pass
  • Ref 9: pass
  • Ref 10: pass
  • Ref 17: "including the Olympic debut of women's gymnastics events", unless I'm missing something, women's artistic gymnastics debuted at the 1928 Summer Olympics
  • Ref 23: pass
  • Ref 26: pass
  • Ref 31: pass
  • Ref 34: pass
  • Ref 35: pass

Thoughts

  • Just a few comments above, nothing major. Nice work Josh. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 21:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Hey @UpTheOctave!, I've addressed all of your points, and the only ones I think I need to reply directly to are the following:
  • Ref 17: "including the Olympic debut of women's gymnastics events", unless I'm missing something, women's artistic gymnastics debuted at the 1928 Summer Olympics – After rereading and looking into it, the it was women's individual events that were introduced at the 1952 games, whereas previously it was only the all-around event for women. A breakdown of events by year can be viewed Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics#Women's events. What's now ref 16 also reflects this, by saying In gymnastics, individual events for women were introduced. – I clearly misunderstood this mention.
  • Wondering if there's a better source than one via the China Internet Information Center, a state-controlled media outlet – I struggled, a lot, with the situation and wording where I used this source. It was surprisingly neutral for the bit that I used it for, and substantiated by other sources, but it would have required 3-4 sources for the information I used in one source by using this one.
Thanks so much for the quality source review! I always enjoy when you give source reviews at WP:FLC and I hope that you continue to do so :) Please let me know if I've missed anything or if you've seen anything more. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
I think I'm happy to sign off on this given your explanations: pass for source review. Nice work Josh. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 20:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments from LEvalyn

I thought I'd take a peek over at the world of featured lists, but after carefully reading this list several times, I feel almost silly creating a section here with so little feedback to give. I keep typing things and deleting them once I figure them out! For example, a non-suggestion: I sometimes forgot what an NOC was, but this was clearly explained and often well-reinforced by context, and I particularly appreciate the tooltip in the table. Nonetheless, two notes:

  • The paragraph in the lead about China is leaving me uncertain as to whether I've correctly understood the information at hand. It was 1952 which first allowed both PRC and ROC to compete, thus being the first PRC olympics? Was 1952 also the first year that ROC represented non-mainland-China athletes? I think putting in one more date -- like 1949 as the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War -- might help 'ground' this for those (like me) with too little background knowledge. And/or, perhaps move the parenthetical about the ROC into its own sentence, placed in the chronological flow as something which occurred before the IOC's decision?
  • It's redundant to say "In addition" and "also" for the line about pesäpallo. I also wonder if this sentence would flow better at the end of paragraph 2, but it works where it is too.

Otherwise, I have no changes to suggest. I hope these comments are helpful. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Never feel bad about saying you reviewed something and didn't find much to comment on @LEvalyn. It still helps the promoters to know that people made the effort.
Regarding the China issue, yes, it was the first time that mainland China competed as the People's Republic of China. I've made a change that I hope clears things up.
I've also removed the word "also" from the sentence you mentioned and moved it, but I chose to combine the first two sentences because of this change. Thank you very much for taking a look over the list and providing feedback! Outside perspectives, especially from those are not regular reviewers, are very valuable for those of us who get tunnel visioned on a series. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, and speedy edits! The new version of the China paragraph is definitely an improvement, but I feel that there's still a logical gap in spelling out that PRC = mainland and ROC = Taiwan. Something like, "claimed to be the proper representative party of China, retaining the ROC designation" ? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Progress is progress, I added some verbiage so it needs read "the IOC granted the ROC designation to the group in Taiwan and allowed both the PRC and ROC..."
I did struggle with the wording of this paragraph putting it together, so I definitely understand the feedback and appreciate it. Whatever makes things clear while being as concise as appropriate. Lemme know what you think @LEvalyn. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I think this version fully clarifies it! And much better than what I’d been thinking. Thanks, and I’m happy to support. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  • 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.
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [42].

1960 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This is Olympic medal table #7 for me (Winter Games nom #3), and it's the the shortest one I've worked on so far. There were no NOCs as a first time medalist or first time gold medalists, no stripped medals to mention, and only a single first time participant. It was a relatively run of the mill event, with high stakes of course. As always, I will do my best to respond to all comments as quickly as possible, and I appreciate any and all feedback that is given. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • "665 athletes representing" - I would suggest "A total of 665 athletes representing" to avoid that whole "starting a sentence with a digit" thing which, while probably not technically wrong, always looks a bit "off" to me
  • Infobox image caption needs a full stop
  • "Athletes presenting 14 NOCs" => "Athletes representing 14 NOCs"
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Done! Thank you as always for the feedback @ChrisTheDude. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Dates are consistantly formatted
Everything is linked
Spotchecked all sources and everything lines up.
Support unrelated but "California, United States" violated MOS:GEOLINK I'm assuming this will be fixed so happy to support. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh boy am I grateful to have gotten a quick source review, thanks @OlifanofmrTennant! I've addressed the MOS:GEOLINK issue, which I appreciate you pointing out. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

BP!

Placeholder. If you have a moment or are willing to review my FAC Ethan Winters, I'll also appreciate it! Unfortunately, it is not flc. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  • The 1960 Winter Olympics, officially known as the VIII Olympic Winter Games and also known as Squaw Valley 1960, were a winter multi-sport event held from February 18 to 28, 1960, at the Squaw Valley Resort (now known as Palisades Tahoe) in Squaw Valley (now known as Olympic Valley), California, United States. This seems to be a long ass sentence. Can you maybe reword/rephrase it?
  • Can you bundle those 4 citations together so that the article will look better?
  • Can you maybe capitalize the "D" from the surname "De Bruin"? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • This seems to be a long ass sentence. Can you maybe reword/rephrase it? – Long as the sentence may be, it's following the standard format, and there's nothing technically wrong with it from my perspective.
    • Can you bundle those 4 citations together so that the article will look better? – I typically do not bundle citations unless there's five of them. My opinion is that this does not negatively affect the readability or make the article look worse.
    • Can you maybe capitalize the "D" from the surname "De Bruin"? – The source does not capitalize it, and if you look at De Bruin, you'll see it's a fairly common thing not to do so.
    I appreciate you taking a look over the article and providing a review @Boneless Pizza!. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just following up to see if I've addressed all of your points or whether there's any outstanding issue(s) @Boneless Pizza!. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi. I don't see any other issues at the article now. So, I'll Support this nom. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

ZooBlazer

  • Image has alt text, appropriately licensed, and the caption fits the article. So I guess with just one image, the image review passes
  • Do you need all 4 of the first references together, or is it possible to cut it down one or two?
  • Not sure if it's something absolutely needed or not, but based on reviews of my lists in the past, I've been told to include |+ {{sronly|TEXT HERE}} for the tables, so maybe add that.

Overall the article looks good! My comments are mostly nitpicking. It's crazy how many more medals are awarded these days compared to this Olympics. -- ZooBlazer 22:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: Thank you for the review! To address your points, I tried very hard to find the appropriate references to not use 4 refs on the lead sentence, but due to the name changes and the variety of information contained in the lead sentence, I was unable to. As for the suggested template, the purpose of that is to add a table title for screen readers. In that template, that heading is meant to only be displayed for screen readers. This is not necessary when there's already a title added to the table, but some people opt to hide a table title while others choose to include it. In this case, and in the case of most Olympic medal tables, it makes more sense to include the caption with the source as the top 10 entries for the table are often transcluded into the main Olympics article.
Never feel bad nitpicking any of my noms, it only serves to make them better and pushes me to consider various aspects of what I'm doing when I'm doing them! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
All good then. Happy to support! -- ZooBlazer 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Matthewrb

All of these are minor nitpicks, list looks good otherwise. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 21:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the review @Matthewrb! It's my perspective that the official site link is better shared from the main article, which it is shared from. I also feel the same way about the commons category, since this is, in a sense/from my perspective, a subset/subtopic of the event. If there were a relevant sub topic of the commons category I think I'd be on board, such as Commons:Category:Sportspeople with 2024 Summer Olympics medals or Commons:Category:Podiums at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough, that does make sense. Since all of my concerns are addressed, I support this nomination. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 18:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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, 21 February 2025 (UTC) [43].

1980 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This is Olympic medal table #8 for me (Summer Games nom #5). It was the first Olympic Games held in a communist country (USSR) which caused a massive boycott by 60+ countries, leading to Soviet domination of the event. It was an interesting one for me to research. As always, I will do my best to respond to all comments as quickly as possible, and I appreciate any and all feedback that is given. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

  • "stemming from an unprecedented boycott" labeling the boycott unprecedented seems better fit for the first mention of it.
  • Also unprecedented seems somewhat WP:LOADED, so is there a citation that specifically describes it as such?
  • Table appears to be missing row scopes
  • Table also appears to be missing column scopes
  • Alt text is present in the first two images but not the third
  • All images are commons.
  • In image two's caption put "pictured in 2018" in parentheses for consistency with lead image.
Ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Some templates actually include the row and column scopes, making it unnecessary/redundant to define them in the tables. This is part of what the award tables template does.
  • Added alt text to third image
  • Hm, I could have sworn I didn't pick that word for no reason, but I can't seem to find a ref that phrases it close enough for my comfort. I've changed it to "large-scale" instead
I hope this has addressed your concerns, and thank you for the review OlifanofmrTennant. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

ZooBlazer

  • In the caption of the Alexander Dityatin image, italicize "pictured in 2018".
  • You can probably move the ref after 80 National Olympic Committees (NOCs) participated to right before the next ref after 1956.
  • there was a two-way tie for first and a two-way tie for third - maybe rewrite as "there were two-way ties for first and third". Or "...for first and third, respectively"

That's all I have. Nice job. -- ZooBlazer 02:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Is there a reason we would italicize a bracketed pictured in x year? I haven't had this brought up to me before in past nominations, so if there's a good reason to be doing it, I'd like to of course apply it across all the lists where applicable and keep it in mind for the reviews that I do
  • You can probably move the ref after 80 National Olympic Committees (NOCs) participated to right before the next ref after 1956. – Perhaps it's just my style, but I prefer to leave the reference after the sentence has completed instead of putting it in the middle of the next sentence. You did however make me realize that my fourth reference there is redundant, as it mentions that it was the fewest number of teams to have participated since 1956, so I've re-used the reference there as well. Again, I think it's a stylistic thing for me. If it was after two full sentences, I'd absolutely agree, but it being in the middle of the second sentence to also verify the first sentence just feels weird to me. Feels isn't necessarily the best reason to not do something, but I think a ref at the very end of the sentence, then re-using the same reference in the middle of the next sentence, makes it more clear what the various references are meant to verify.
  • there was a two-way tie for first and a two-way tie for third - maybe rewrite as "there were two-way ties for first and third". Or "...for first and third, respectively" – Ah yes, much less clunky, went with the latter suggestion.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this and providing feedback @ZooBlazer! I hope I've addressed all of your points. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, you're the second one to bring up the italicizing thing to me in reviews lately. Maybe I got bad info or something. I've been doing it since my FAC last year when I was told to do it, so I thought it was a rule for featured content. If no one else has mentioned it in the past, then I guess don't worry about it here. Maybe it's only for Today's Featured content? Because every time I've had anything involving (pictured) it gets italicized before it runs on the main page.
Nothing left to do for me except support! -- ZooBlazer 16:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Interesting, please do reach out if you ever find any more info about the italicizing stuff, I'd love to be doing things more proper if there's an option to do so. Thanks again for the review @ZooBlazer! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • "This was the fewest number of participating NOCs since 1956,[4] which included seven teams making their Olympic debut at the Summer Games; Angola,[5] Botswana,[6] Cyprus,[7], Jordan,[8] Laos,[9] Mozambique,[10] and Seychelles" - the ordering makes this a bit hard to parse. I'd suggest maybe "This included seven teams making their Olympic debut at the Summer Games; Angola,[5] Botswana,[6] Cyprus,[7], Jordan,[8] Laos,[9] Mozambique,[10] and Seychelles, but was the smallest number of participating NOCs since 1956.[4]" (note also the change from "fewest number" to "smallest number" - "fewest number" doesn't work grammatically)
  • The image caption doesn't need "(pictured)" as obviously it's him pictured
  • "bronze medals being awarded to each of the competitors who lost their semi-final matches, as opposed to taking part in a third place tiebreaker." => "bronze medals being awarded to each of the competitors who lost their semi-final matches, as opposed to them taking part in a third place tiebreaker."
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
    • I went with ...representing 80 National Olympic Committees (NOCs) participated, which included seven teams making their Olympic debut at the Summer Games; Angola, ... I then moved the sentence after the list of countries and tweaked it to read "smallest" instead of "fewest".
    • The image caption doesn't need "(pictured)" as obviously it's him pictured – Done
    • Example text – Tweak made, I'll go back and do this for other lists that include the same verbiage.
    Thanks as always for the helpful review @ChrisTheDude! I hope I've addressed all of your points and welcome any more than you may have. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review from Octave

Saw this on FLC urgents, will provide a review soon. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 23:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to do the source review @UpTheOctave! I look forward to the valuable feedback that you typically provide. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewed diff/1273713710

Reliability – all good

  • Noting that Encyclopædia Britannica is used according to WP:BRITANNICA
  • Noting that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is used according to WP:RFE/RL

Consistency – couple of minor issues

  • Inconsistent archive use, see below
  • Inconsistent access date use, see below
  • You know how I feel on title/sentence case, but as always I'll let it slide ;)

Other comments – few comments

  • Ref 1: you are linking to a version from 17 January 2025 but citing a version from 19 November 2024
  • Ref 3: add author Michael Scollon (see the bottom of the page)
  • Ref 12: missing archive
  • Ref 13: link Stephen G. Smith (writer); correct name is "Time", not "Time Magazine"; lack of space after comma in the title probably falls under MOS:TYPOFIX; missing access date
  • Ref 14: link Ron Fimrite
  • Ref 15: missing archive
  • Ref 17: author is "Bryan Murphy" not "Brian Murphy"
  • Ref 21: missing access date

Spotchecks – 25% of listed sources (eight references)

  • Ref 1: pass
  • Ref 2: "the games featured 203 events in 21 sports across 27 disciplines" is not fully verified, this source only mentions the events total
  • Ref 3: the source says the boycott benefitted the Soviet Union, but not East Germany
  • Ref 7: pass
  • Ref 9: pass
  • Ref 10: pass
  • Ref 13: pass
  • Ref 31: pass

Thoughts

  • Good work as usual. My checks turned up some verifiability and formatting issues, but nothing that can't be fixed. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 19:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
@UpTheOctave!: All of your points have now been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Happy with these fixes, this is a pass for sourcing. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 21:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 22:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  • 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.
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [44].

1992 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This is my sixth Olympics medal table and I'm happy to be back at it again. I believe it's all encompassing, reflects the relevant information, and meets all of our criteria. As always, if there are any issues I'll be do my best to respond quickly and address all criticisms brought forth. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • "were included as official medal events for the first time ever" => "were included as official medal events for the first time"
  • "Also former Soviet republics, Estonia and Latvia" => "Two other former Soviet republics, Estonia and Latvia"
  • "Athletes representing 64 NOCs received at least one medal, with 37 of them winning" - 37 athletes?
  • "Meanwhile, Croatia,[21] Israel,[22] Malaysia,[23] Namibia,[24] Qatar,[25] and Slovenia won their nation's first Olympic medals" - I think you can lose "meanwhile"
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • "were included as official medal events for the first time ever" -> "were included as official medal events for the first time" – Good catch, done.
  • "Also former Soviet republics, Estonia and Latvia" -> "Two other former Soviet republics, Estonia and Latvia" – Yes, definitely better, done.
  • "Athletes representing 64 NOCs received at least one medal, with 37 of them winning" - 37 athletes? – It's meant to represent that the NOCs received at least one gold medal. Well this is doing my brain in a bit... I've used this wording on several FLs now, but I can definitely see it both ways now. Agh, do you have any suggestions?
  • I think "Athletes representing 64 NOCs received at least one medal, with 37 NOCs winning at least one gold medal" would work.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Done. I'll make the changes to my other FLs as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • "Meanwhile, Croatia,[21] Israel,[22] Malaysia,[23] Namibia,[24] Qatar,[25] and Slovenia won their nation's first Olympic medals" - I think you can lose "meanwhile" – Done.
Thanks as always for the helpful review and tweaks ChrisTheDude!

Comments

  • Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia competed independently, as opposed to as a part of Yugoslavia, for the first time following the breakup of Yugoslavia. – based on the other dissolutions, breakups, and such, I don't see the need for "as opposed to as a part of Yugoslavia".
  • and Slovenia won their nation's first Olympic medals. – why is this separate from the countries just listed?
  • said to have intentionally dropped or thrown his medal + but he threw it again. – did he throw it the first time or no?
  • There were some misplaced periods, but I fixed those on my own accord.

Other than that, good work! Kline • talk • contribs 21:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  • ... based on the other dissolutions, breakups, and such, I don't see the need for "as opposed to as a part of Yugoslavia". – So this is where it got kind of complicated for me. You see, Slovenia (in 1912) and Croatia (in 1900) actually competed as part of the Austrian NOC before. There's a bit of a complicated history with teams competing with / as part of Yugoslavia, and I thought by including that I was adding clarity. To be honest I could go either way, so if you think the article is better served by its removal, then I can go ahead and do so. I would like to find a different place to link Yugoslavia at the Olympics though if that's removed, as I think the article does provide some interesting and useful context.
  • and Slovenia won their nation's first Olympic medals. – why is this separate from the countries just listed? – I'm sorry, I don't think I understand. Is this to do with me listing nations and putting the reference for said nation immediately after the punctuation (comma)? I typically do to avoid ref groups, and to make it clear which reference is relevant to said country/text, instead of putting it all at the end. The ref for that is at the end of the sentence because there's no punctuation to put it after and we don't put references in the middle of a sentence, so this has been my practice and hasn't been an issue in the past.
  • said to have intentionally dropped or thrown his medal + but he threw it again. – did he throw it the first time or no? – I think there was ambiguity when I was first writing it out and reading about it, but I felt more confident as I read more and more, especially based on the IOC ruling and writings. I left this ambiguous when I shouldn't have, and I've removed the dropped part given the sources used pretty clearly state he threw it.
  • There were some misplaced periods, but I fixed those on my own accord. – I did actually revert one of those, but the first one was definitely a mistake. It's intentional, meant to note that the gold that Lithuania won was actually also the first medal of any kind. It's been something that's been noted in other lists as well, and I've received feedback to separate it out, while also not including it in the following sentence to distinguish it while also avoiding making the sentences more clunky.
Thanks for the review @Kline, I hope I've addressed your points. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh The Slovenia point was my fault as I read it with the comma, sorry about that. I'm not super concerned about the Yugoslavia thing now since you have explained and the rest have been addressed. Support. Kline • talk • contribs 18:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • "It was also the first Olympic medal of any kind for Lithuania, Croatia, Israel, Malaysia Namibia, Qatar, and Slovenia won their nation's first Olympic medals." In that sentence it is saying first Olympic medal twice, I'd suggest deleting one of them. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    @History6042: Those were actually meant to be two separate sentences, but Kline mistakenly thought it was meant to be a comma. It now reads as two separate sentences, as it was originally meant to. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Alright, thanks for letting me know. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • "South Africa, who had been excluded from the Olympics" -> "South Africa, which had been excluded from the Olympics". South Africa is not a person. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    @History6042: Fixed, thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • "for its use of apartheid system in sports" -> "for its use of the apartheid system in sports". Addition of a definite article.
    @History6042: Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support, I couldn't find any other issues. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh sorry, one more thing, "third place tie breaker." -> "third place tiebreaker." History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @History6042: Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review and comment

  • File:Romas Ubartas by Augustas Didzgalvis.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Tie Break Tens Vienna 23.10.2016-51 (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Susi Susanti (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • Images have proper alt text, relevant to the article, and have suitable captions.
  • Bosnia-Herzegovina, why is it hyphenated rather than being "Bosnia and Herzegovina"?
Sorry about the delay in replying Arconning, I actually don't have a good explanation for the Bosnia and Herzegovina. I've made the fix. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Just pinging as a follow up @Arconning. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support, just fell asleep my bad! Arconning (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review

  • Everything is wikilinked
  • And from reliable sources
  • Ref-47 isn't archived, the rest are
  • Consistently and properly formatted
  • Spot-check on 14 refs(1, 4, 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 23, 47, 32, 35, 38, 40, 18(medal table))
    • ref-17 says 1964, page says 1968
    • ref-40: nothing that says it was the only tie outside gymnastics, or that there were only 8 ties in gymnastics- which might be WP:OR (I'm not sure)

@Hey man im josh: just these 3 issues, so a support from my side once they are done, as it meets all 6 criteria. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the source review @DoctorWhoFan91!
  • Ref-47 isn't archived, the rest are – IABot didn't catch the archive, but I manually added it.
  • ref-17 says 1964, page says 1968 – Good catch, fixed.
  • ref-40: nothing that says it was the only tie outside gymnastics, or that there were only 8 ties in gymnastics- which might be WP:OR (I'm not sure) – Instead of making the claim that that was the only other tie, I changed the wording to In women's solo synchronized swimming there was also a two-way tie for first, which resulted in two gold medals and no silver medals being awarded. As for the 8 ties in gymnastics, I added this overview of the rhythmic gymnastics event, and this overview of the artistic gymnastics events, which reflect that there were "only" 8 ties (I say only because that's actually quite a bit for one sport :P).
I hope I've addressed everything to your satisfaction, but please let me know either way, and thanks again for the review @DoctorWhoFan91! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, everything has been addressed, and the two new refs are also properly formatted and archived. (Yeah, more events with ties than those without :D) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [45].

AP NFL Assistant Coach of the Year Award

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This the longest I've gone without a nom and I've been itching to make another, so here it is! This is about an award that's given by the Associated Press annually, since 2014, to the top assistant coach in the NFL. This list is based on the similarly promoted lists of AP NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award, AP NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award, and AP NFL Most Valuable Player Award. As always, I will do my best to respond to any and all criticism in a timely manner and to address all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by SounderBruce

  • "who regularly follow the NFL" feels a bit strange; should it be "regularly report on the NFL"?
  • Third sentence has a repeated use of "presented"; perhaps it should be reordered as well to put the first use after mentioning where the award is presented.
  • Citation for the last statement in the first paragraph?
  • Last sentence of the second paragraph should mention the year of the award, recipient's position and/or his team.
  • Can the uses of "AP News" in the citations be replaced with "Associated Press"?
  • Citation 3 should use {{cite press release}} and note the AP as the publisher.

Quite the short list, so I don't have much to comment on. SounderBruce 03:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it's my shortest list thus far, but I needed something to shake off the rust lol.
  • "who regularly follow the NFL" feels a bit strange; should it be "regularly report on the NFL"? – Yes, definitely better wording, done.
  • Third sentence has a repeated use of "presented"; perhaps it should be reordered as well to put the first use after mentioning where the award is presented. – I've changed the wording to The ACOY is presented alongside seven other AP awards at the NFL Honors and was first awarded following the 2014 NFL season at the 4th Annual NFL Honors. Let me know if you think think this could be improved upon further.
  • Citation for the last statement in the first paragraph? – While I don't have a citation that explicitly says that, I felt it worth mentioning and fairly obvious based on the table itself.
  • Last sentence of the second paragraph should mention the year of the award, recipient's position and/or his team. – changed to Jim Schwartz, the defensive coordinator of the 2023 Cleveland Browns, is the most recent winner of the award.
  • Can the uses of "AP News" in the citations be replaced with "Associated Press"? – You know, I'm actually glad you mentioned that. I felt iffy about listing AP News, and I do feel "Associated Press" would be better, so I'm glad to see this suggestion. I've made the change.
  • Citation 3 should use {{cite press release}} and note the AP as the publisher. – Done.
Thank you so much for the review @SounderBruce, I very much appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Made a few little tweaks, but it all looks good. Support. SounderBruce 23:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

I support all the above, plus....

  • Is there an appropriate link for "assistant coach"? or at the very least for "coach"?
  • Also links for "offensive or defensive coordinators"? I for one don't know what these are
  • "following the seasons which they won the award for" => "following the seasons for which they won the award" would read more elegantly I think
  • "remained assistant coaches for at least another season after winning the award but were also hired as head coaches" => "remained assistant coaches for at least another season after winning the award but were subsequently hired as head coaches" (current wording makes it sound like they were hired as head coaches while also continuing to work as assistant coaches, which I presume isn't what is meant)
  • For accessibility reasons I don't believe you can use just bold to highlight something (in this case who won the SuperBowl). Use colour/symbol
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Is there an appropriate link for "assistant coach"? or at the very least for "coach"? – Wikilinked to coach (sport) in the opening sentence.
  • Also links for "offensive or defensive coordinators"? I for one don't know what these are – Done.
  • "following the seasons which they won the award for" -> "following the seasons for which they won the award" would read more elegantly I think – Ah, yes, definitely!
  • "remained assistant coaches for at least another season after winning the award but were also hired as head coaches" -> "remained assistant coaches for at least another season after winning the award but were subsequently hired as head coaches" (current wording makes it sound like they were hired as head coaches while also continuing to work as assistant coaches, which I presume isn't what is meant) – Ah yeah, definitely not what I meant, your wording is definitely an improvement and has been implemented.
  • For accessibility reasons I don't believe you can use just bold to highlight something (in this case who won the SuperBowl). Use colour/symbol – I hadn't considered whether bold would be called out or not, but I certainly want to make sure it's accessible, so I've swapped it to a fill and an asterisks.
Thank you very much for the review and helpful feedback @ChrisTheDude! I hope I've addressed everything :) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments (Source review)

  • Should you mention that PFWA also gives out an Assistant Coach of the Year Award?
  • the defensive coordinator of the 2023 Cleveland Browns --> the defensive coordinator for the 2023 Cleveland Browns
  • Source review: Passed
    • Do you typically include the |location= field? I only see it in a few sources. Should it be universally included or not included?
    • All references are consistently formatted.
    • References are reliable for what is being cited.
    • Spot checks all passed.

Nice work Hey man im josh! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Should you mention that PFWA also gives out an Assistant Coach of the Year Award? – I'm not sure I can comfortably shoehorn it in anywhere. I'd put it in the see also section if there was a list of them somewhere on wiki, but I can't actually find their assistant coach award listed anywhere.
  • the defensive coordinator of the 2023 Cleveland Browns --> the defensive coordinator for the 2023 Cleveland Browns – Fixed.
  • Do you typically include the – Honestly I go back and forth on the whether they should be included or not in a lot of cases. I did so because of the fact they were included in the sources I was using. Based on the information at Template:Citation, it seems like I should when it's presented as the prefix/dateline for the article text in a number of places. Truthfully I'm trying to improve my reference work, and if it's not appropriate, I would appreciate the feedback on that.
Thanks so much for the review Gonzo fan2007! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Image review – The one photo used in the article has an appropriate free license, caption and alt text. My only suggestion regarding the image is to fix the misspelling of Tennessee in the alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agh, thanks @Giants2008, fixed. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 16:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [46].

List of Dallas Cowboys seasons

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The Dallas Cowboys are, historically speaking, one of the NFL's most successful franchises, holding the second-highest all-time regular season record and having won 5 Super Bowls. The list is an overview of their season-by-season results and awards. This is #4 in my ongoing effort to get all of the lists of NFL team seasons to featured list. As always, I will do my best to be as responsive as possible and address all criticisms and suggestions that come up. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Originally a member of the NFL Western Conference, the team was moved to the NFL Eastern Conference in 1961 after just one season, they remained in this conference until 1970." - this doesn't work grammatically. I would suggest either "Originally a member of the NFL Western Conference, the team was moved to the NFL Eastern Conference in 1961 after just one season; they remained in this conference until 1970." (note punctuation change) or "Originally a member of the NFL Western Conference, the team was moved to the NFL Eastern Conference in 1961 after just one season and remained in this conference until 1970."
  • "the Cowboys division, the NFL Capitol Division" => "the Cowboys' division, the NFL Capitol Division"
  • "total championships amongst all 32 NFL franchise" => "total championships amongst all 32 NFL franchises"
  • "The team currently has had" - I believe the word "currently" is slightly frowned on, so change to "as of 2025"
  • Image caption: "During which time he had 20 consecutive winning seasons" => "During this time he had 20 consecutive winning seasons"
  • SuperBowl winning rows use a symbol which the key says relates only to years up to 1969....?
  • Footnote: "Up to 1967, the league was either divided its two divisions into, two conferences, or neither" - this is a bit mangled. I think what is meant is "Up to 1967, the league was either divided into two divisions, two conferences, or neither" but I am no expert and might be wrong
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • "Originally a member of the NFL Western Conference, the team was moved to the NFL Eastern Conference in 1961 after just one season, they remained in this conference until 1970." - this doesn't work grammatically. I would suggest either "Originally a member of the NFL Western Conference, the team was moved to the NFL Eastern Conference in 1961 after just one season; they remained in this conference until 1970." (note punctuation change) or "Originally a member of the NFL Western Conference, the team was moved to the NFL Eastern Conference in 1961 after just one season and remained in this conference until 1970." – Done with the punctuation change. I need to get better about utilizing semi colons
    • "the Cowboys division, the NFL Capitol Division" -> "the Cowboys' division, the NFL Capitol Division" – Done.
    • "total championships amongst all 32 NFL franchise" -> "total championships amongst all 32 NFL franchises" – Pluralized
    • "The team currently has had" - I believe the word "currently" is slightly frowned on, so change to "as of 2025" – You're right, we do frown on that. Changed to simply "The team has had...", to match a past promotion. Also added to the beginning of the paragraph "As of the of the 2024 season...", which should clarify that the numbers in that paragraph apply to that entire paragraph.
    • Image caption: "During which time he had 20 consecutive winning seasons" -> "During this time he had 20 consecutive winning seasons" – Done.
    • SuperBowl winning rows use a symbol which the key says relates only to years up to 1969....? – Ack! Tried to use a consistent key across season articles and mistakenly left the old one in place. I've fixed this and double checked other symbols to be sure, and it should all be good now.
    • Footnote: "Up to 1967, the league was either divided its two divisions into, two conferences, or neither" - this is a bit mangled. I think what is meant is "Up to 1967, the league was either divided into two divisions, two conferences, or neither" but I am no expert and might be wrong – No you're right, I've made the fix, thank you.
    As always I greatly appreciate the feedback ChrisTheDude! Your suggestions always make the articles I work on better  :) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • "based in Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex." -> "based in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex." History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • "Denver Broncos for second-most Super Bowl" -> "Denver Broncos for the second-most Super Bowl" History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • "New England Patriots' record 11 appearances." -> "New England Patriots' record of 11 appearances." History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • "amongst all 32 NFL franchise." -> "amongst all 32 NFL franchises." History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • If these are fixed then I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • "based in Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex." -> "based in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex." – Done.
    • "Denver Broncos for second-most Super Bowl" -> "Denver Broncos for the second-most Super Bowl" – I believe the current phrasing is actually grammatically correct and approrpirate.
    • "New England Patriots' record 11 appearances." -> "New England Patriots' record of 11 appearances." – The current phrasing is grammatically correct in my opinion.
    • "amongst all 32 NFL franchise." -> "amongst all 32 NFL franchises." – Fixed per ChrisTheDude's comment about.
    Thank you for your review @History6042, but I recommend in the future you group your feedback under one reply instead of signing all points of it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, will do, thanks for letting me know. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just to be entirely clear, have all your concerns been addressed @History6042? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I found no other issues with the prose. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

  • Lead image has alt text and suitable caption
  • Body images have alt text and suitable caption
  • All images are from commons so no copyright issues
  • Everything checks out so Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Jpeeling

Appears to be a few bits in the lead that may need an update and reworded:

  • "The Cowboys have won their division 25 times" ref shows 26 division wins and clear second
  • "They have also made the playoffs 36 times, an NFL record shared with the Green Bay Packers" ref shows Packers are clear leaders with 37
  • "eighth-best playoff record in terms of win–loss percentage" ref shows they are now ninth

JP (Talk) 10:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  • "The Cowboys have won their division 25 times" ref shows 26 division wins and clear second – It may seem clear if you're unfamiliar with the situation, but that number actually seems to include when they led a conference, prior to when there were divisions in that case. What appears to have been included was them leading the conference in 1966. It appears I factored this in mentally without finishing up the search when I originally worked on this. This did however lead me down the rabbit down, and makes it clear that the Packers have actually only won their division 22 times, but they won their conference (when there were no divisions) 5 times, led the league in regular season 3 times (before the NFL Championship existed, which they are credited a division win for), and were credited for 1982, when there was essentially no divisions and they finished 3rd in their conference, which is why their total is listed as 31 instead. Given the ambiguity of the situation, I've replaced the text to state they won their division 25 times, with a different reference, and mentioned that they lead their division in wins instead.
  • "They have also made the playoffs 36 times, an NFL record shared with the Green Bay Packers" ref shows Packers are clear leaders with 37 – Fixed. Missed when I did my updates on this.
  • "eighth-best playoff record in terms of win–loss percentage" ref shows they are now ninth – Looks like this has been changed as of Saturday after the Chiefs', so this has now bene updated.
I believe I've addressed all of your points @Jpeeling:, thank you for the feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Just following up to confirm I've addressed your feedback @Jpeeling. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes you have addressed my comments, thank you JP (Talk) 17:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review from Octave

Happy to help out with a source review. See below for comments:

Reviewed diff/1270648368

Reliability

  • The only question I have is on Pro Football Network. From a search, Josiah Caswell seems to be a journalism student: that makes me pause. What makes this a reliable source?
  • Otherwise, reliable sources used consistently.

Formatting

  • Could we have consistent title or sentence case?
  • Mdy used consistently.
  • References formatted with proper citation templates.
  • Wikilinks used consistently and appropriately.

Other comments

Spotchecks

  • Ref 1a & b: pass, not sure we need a citation in the lead image but it's not a problem.
  • Ref 2: pass.
  • Ref 3a: pass.
  • Refs 3b and 10: I'm not seeing verification for "(1974 and 1984)."
  • Ref 5a: surely "they remained in this conference until 1970" cannot be verified by a source from 1961?
  • Ref 6b: pass.
  • Ref 9a, b & c: pass.
  • Ref 12: pass.
  • Refs 14 and 15: not seeing verification for the AP award, suggest using [47].
  • Ref 18: pass.
  • Refs 20 and 42: pass.
  • Ref 23: pass.
  • Ref 27: pass.
  • Ref 34: pass.
  • Ref 46: pass.
  • Ref 51: pass.
  • Ref 66: pass.
  • Ref 72: pass.
  • Ref 80: pass.
  • Refs 84 and 85: pass.
  • Ref 91: pass
  • Refs 96 and 97: pass.
  • Ref 99: pass.

That's all, happy to pass this once these minor problems are sorted. Nice work. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 22:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave!: I believe I've addressed everything under other comments. As for the cases used, I don't typically adjust the casing used at the source unless it's all capitalized, at which point I change it to title case. Lastly, regarding Pro Football Network, I do believe they're generally treated as reliable enough for non-controversial information (Jimmy Johnson coach of the year), I went ahead and replaced the reference out of laziness instead of trying to dig up said discussion.
I think and hope that addresses everything! Hey man im josh (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm happy with the comments, thank you for replacing the Pro Football Network source. I see a set title format as part of consistent citation formatting, but I know opinions can differ. Only the issues identified in spotchecks to fix now, specifically refs 3b and 10, ref 5a, and refs 14 and 15. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Shame on me, I missed those aspects of the review when I was dealing with this last night on mobile.
  • Refs 3b and 10: I'm not seeing verification for "(1974 and 1984)." – Re-used a ref from elsewhere that makes this clear.
  • Ref 5a: surely "they remained in this conference until 1970" cannot be verified by a source from 1961? – So, this information is actually elaborated on two sentences afterwards when it mentions the merger, so it is explained, but you bring up a valid point. I added a reference, because why should I expect people to have to go looking for it, right?
  • Refs 14 and 15: not seeing verification for the AP award, suggest using [1]. – If I'm adding refs I gotta reference everything in there properly, and I must have been thinking of what was in the table was already referenced. I used a different reference which verifies that (link).
I hope I've addressed everything now @UpTheOctave!. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Looking good! Thanks for fixing these, happy to pass this review. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 18:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 20:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  • 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.
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, 13 April 2025 (UTC) [48].

List of Philadelphia Eagles seasons

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Taking a break from the Olympic medal table lists to nominate the list of seasons for the reigning Super Bowl champions, the Philadelphia Eagles. This is my fifth NFL team seasons list and, as always, I will do my best to respond in a timely fashion and to address any and all questions, issues, and critiques that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review

  • Formatting is consistent.
  • Ref 6: DAZN doesn't seem to have strong editorial standards. This one should be easy to replace, and move up to support the preceding sentence.
    • Ref 2 can similarly be replaced.
  • Ref 78: ": The..." is not part of the headline.
  • Notes H and J: "American conference" etc. are proper nouns, so conference should be capitalized.

That's all I have. SounderBruce 21:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and providing a review @SounderBruce. For basic information about the NFL I felt as though DAZN is a suitable source. You'd also be surprised how difficult is actually is to source some of the very basic information we take for granted. I find the DAZN source states things in a more direct way than some other available sources that expect you to simply know some aspects of the information being verified. In regards to their standards, I don't think they're making any type of leap with the information provided, again just presenting it in a more digestible way for the layman. It's also relevant that they're an official streaming platform for the NFL on a ten year deal (source). With that in mind, I think the source is acceptable, but I understand if you do not and would like to hear that if you don't think the relevant context is acceptable.
As for the conference name stuff, I've fixed that. Regarding ref 78, it actually is part of the headline when I visit the page. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
The NFL broadcasting deal is what raises a flag for me, as it could affect how impartial their coverage is. In this case, it's not dire so it is acceptable. UPI uses auto-generated titles based on the first few words in content for their older releases, so it should be fixed or replaced with a newspaper's run of the same content (e.g. this clipping) that has a proper title. SounderBruce 22:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: I agree, if it were anything less than indisputable information regarding the structure of the league or something similar, I'd be looking elsewhere as well. I'm personally flabbergasted with how the league doesn't just straight up lay out their structure anywhere I can find, and sources are incomplete in their explanations of the conference vs division structure. That's why I resorted to using the DAZN references. As for the UPI ref, I've replaced it with the clipping you've provided, which I'm very much appreciative for. I'll keep this in mind for future UPI reference I find and use, and I'll search for Newspaper replacements for that reason instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Support based on sourcing. Replacing the DAZN source is a nice-to-have rather than a must in this case. SounderBruce 03:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • In the lead, Super Bowl LIX is linked but LII is not
  • "became the first and only division where every team in it has won at least one Super Bowl" - if it became the first one then it also became the only one by definition. Suggest changing to "became the first division in which every team has won at least one Super Bowl; as of 2025 it remained the only such division"
  • "No division has had all of its member" => "No division has had all of its members"
  • That's it I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the review and the suggestions, I've made the changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments

I am not very confident in my reviewing capabilities but I have two minor suggestions:

  • The lack of daggers and asterisks accompanying coloured cells of the postseason results column. I see that it’s done in other columns, so perhaps it doesn’t need to be done in the results column but I am under the impression that the symbols are supposed to accompany any cell that is coloured for accessibility reasons.
  • The wording of "No division has had all of its members make multiple Super Bowl appearances, except for the NFC East, the members of which have all appeared in at least five Super Bowls." feels like it could be streamlined a bit. It just reads clunky to me as the sentence that comes before that is already referring to the NFC East. Like maybe "It is also the only division that has had all of its members make multiple Super Bowl appearances, with at least five each."

— Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying @Pyropylon98, I've been away for work for most of the last week.
  • The lack of daggers and asterisks accompanying coloured cells of the postseason results column. I see that it’s done in other columns, so perhaps it doesn’t need to be done in the results column but I am under the impression that the symbols are supposed to accompany any cell that is coloured for accessibility reasons. – This is actually an intentional thing to limit the spam of symbols and shading. Winning the conference is appropriately highlighted in the conference column, as is the winner of the league in the league column. The colouring is already highlighting / summarizing this aspect of things.
  • The wording of "No division has had all of its members make multiple Super Bowl appearances, except for the NFC East, the members of which have all appeared in at least five Super Bowls." feels like it could be streamlined a bit. It just reads clunky to me as the sentence that comes before that is already referring to the NFC East. Like maybe "It is also the only division that has had all of its members make multiple Super Bowl appearances, with at least five each." – I get what you're saying, but your wording didn't feel exactly perfect to me, not that my new wording does either... I changed it to It is also the only division in which all of its members have made multiple Super Bowl appearances, with each team appearing in at least five Super Bowls.
Let me know your thoughts @Pyropylon98, and thanks for taking a look and offering feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Following up on this review, as I haven't heard back from you @Pyropylon98. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Ah, yeah I read through it earlier, I have no comments, looks good and thanks for clarifying the info on shading/symbols. — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
guess i should say support — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • Abbreviations such as "WPMOY" should be included in the Legend atop the record-by-season list so that those whose devices don't display abbr/abbrlink will be able to more easily understand what the abbreviations mean.

--MikeVitale 22:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @MikeVitale: Sorry for the delay in responding to this here. Respectfully, I don't think that's necessary in this case because screen readers would still be able to get the relevant information from the abbrvlink, while those on mobile would still be able to preview the link with ease (as I do sometimes on the app). I think it would end up making the legend far too large, and the legend is simply meant to highlight things that are not as easily identifiable and apply to larger parts of the article, as opposed to a specific acronym which is explained with the template. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Respectfully ... Support.
I have never run across this {{abbrlink}} thing before, so I checked out the page on my phone, looked at the code in my browser, and I learned something new. Thanks! --MikeVitale 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 22:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  • 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.
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) 00:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC) [49].

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This is the second former featured list I'm attempting to bring back up to featured list status, and is my sixth NFL seasons list nomination. The Bucs are interesting in that they were the first winless team (in a non-strike shortened season) in the Super Bowl era, going 0-14 in their first season, but they've also had highs in the form of two Super Bowl wins. As always, I will do my best to respond in a timely fashion and to address any and all questions, issues, and critiques that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

  • Why are some notes in the table and some in the refs column?
  • The second mention of Malcolm Glazer should just be Glazer and not the full name
  • Is there any reason as to why they moved around?
That’s what I found ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Hey @OlifanofmrTennant, I'm sorry I didn't answer this yesterday, I must have missed it in my watchlist!
  • Why are some notes in the table and some in the refs column? – When a note could apply specifically to a column, I included it there, such as when teams changed divisions or conferences. When it applied to the season as a whole, such as increasing the number of games in a season, I added it to the reference column. To me this makes the most sense, as it's presenting the notes at the immediate point they'd be relevant, where possible.
  • The second mention of Malcolm Glazer should just be Glazer and not the full name – Fixed
  • Is there any reason as to why they moved around? – I added a note about this, but, in short, there were 28 teams in the league, and the schedule for teams involves playing teams in other conferences and divisions. Well, the Seahawks and Buccs were expansion teams, and they wanted them to play every single team in the league within their first two years. To make this happen they had each team play all 13 other teams in the conference they were placed into, with the 14th game being against each other, and then switched the conferences so that they play everybody else in that conference! It's silly, but that's how it went. I added to the note, which now says The Buccaneers were moved from the AFC West to the NFC Central division prior to the start of the 1977 season, switching with fellow 1976 expansion team, the Seattle Seahawks. The Buccaneers and Seahawks played unique schedules in the 1976 and 1977 seasons, playing every team in their conference as well as one game against each other. The goal of this schedule, and the division swap, was to have the expansion franchises play every other team in the 28-team league by the end of the second season. Following the 1977 season, the Buccaneers and Seahawks played a normal schedule.
Thank you for the review and the good questions which prompted improvements and made me think about the choices I made! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Support Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 18:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The team has played their home games" - I've given up trying to understand whether this construction, where the subject changes from singular to plural inside three words, is valid or not
  • "The team made the playoffs" => "The team have made the playoffs" (as they may yet do so again)
  • " Super Bowl champions (1970–present)" - is the bit in brackets needed, given that the table only starts in 1976.....?
  • "Won Wild Card playoffs (at Football Team)" - huh? They played a generic football team?
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
    • "The team has played their home games" - I've given up trying to understand whether this construction, where the subject changes from singular to plural inside three words, is valid or not – :Spinning eyes: I change it to The Buccaneers have played their home games at Raymond James Stadium since 1998., is this appropriate/acceptable?
    • "The team made the playoffs" -> "The team have made the playoffs" (as they may yet do so again) – Would it not be has instead of have? Have feels wrong coming out of my mouth.
    • Yeah probably. More US/UK English confusion
    • " Super Bowl champions (1970–present)" - is the bit in brackets needed, given that the table only starts in 1976.....? – Good point, removed
    • "Won Wild Card playoffs (at Football Team)" - huh? They played a generic football team? – CLOSE! Washington Football Team, an absolutely terrible but also amazing name that was used for two seasons after the team changed their name from the Washington Redskins.
    Thanks for the review @ChrisTheDude, I'll get better about my singular and plural tense, I swear! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
    Tweaked, I hope your concerns have all been addressed, and if not, I welcome any further criticisms you may have @ChrisTheDude. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Accessibility Review

  • Alt text on the image currently reads "...showing the feat and a large portion..." Should it read "...showing the field and a large portion..."
  • Already good usage of row and column scopes! +1
  • I would include "W", "L", and "T" in the legend table.
  • I would also include abbreviations in the "Awards" column in the legend table.
  • Additionally, the "Legend" row of that table could turn into a caption for that table instead of a 2-column header.

That's all I got! --MikeVitale 02:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions @MikeVitale.
  • Alt text on the image currently reads "...showing the feat and a large portion..." Should it read "...showing the field and a large portion..." – Oof, it should. I've fixed the alt text.
  • I would include "W", "L", and "T" in the legend table. – The items outlined in the legend are those which would not be considered straight forward from my perspective, and it's consistent with other lists of sports seasons in this regard. It's also why we don't typically ask people to include what "Ref(s).", "Refs", or "Ref." are short for. You'll note these abbreviations actually utilize an abbreviation template as well, making it easier and quicker to decipher, which isn't the same as those entries in the legend.
  • I would also include abbreviations in the "Awards" column in the legend table. – I think that runs the risk of making a legend far too large. My perspective is that the abbreviation link template should be appropriate for adequately describing and helping those out who might be otherwise unfamiliar with the abbreviations.
  • Additionally, the "Legend" row of that table could turn into a caption for that table instead of a 2-column header. – It could, but I personally think it functions fine as a table title in this instance. Without that then what would we put above the two different columns?
Appreciate the feedback, and I hope I've adequately addressed all of your comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Support. --MikeVitale MikeVitale 00:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment by Birdienest81

I only have one comment for now. On ref 5, the title "NFL-Profile of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers" has a hyphen. It should be changed to an en-dash (–) per MOS:ENDASH. Otherwise, could you review List of Los Angeles Rams starting quarterbacks for featured list promotion? Be warned, this list more closely resembles List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks since the team history dates to the 1930s, but quarterback wins and loses weren't recorded officially the starting quarterback until 1950 per User:Gonzo fan2007.

--Birdienest81talk 09:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I apologize for the delay, I missed this and I haven't been very active lately. Fixed @Birdienest81. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Just following up @Birdienest81. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Support: This list looks fine
Birdienest81talk 00:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 verification check

Table:

  • I think a note with this reference at 1980 win percentage would be useful to clarify that a tie equals a half win/half loss.
Personally I don't see that as necessary, as the concept of a winning percentage is explained at the target and immediately shows that ties count for half a win there.
  • 1982 division should say Central. There was at least 1 game per Lowitt 1982 reference before it became a conference only season, so the division should be included.
The division should not be included, as the season was treated as though there were no divisions. It did not mean that teams were not still a part of one technically, but for the sake of the season, they were treated as such.
  • Postseason results needs a reference in the heading, like this one. The individual seasons at PFR dont specify the names of the rounds like Wildcard.
The game log is not the reference used, the season page is the reference used in all these cases, and it does specify the names of the rounds like wild card. See the 2020 season reference here as an example, it specifically states it under "Playoffs" at the top of the page.
  • 1982 Postseason should specify it was Wild Card playoffs, to align with the rest of the table.
That's not actually what it was referred to for that season, due to wild card playoff matches including teams that did not win their division, and there being no divisions that season. Teams were seeded based on their final record, so it was a regular 16-team bracket, in which you were sorted based on your regular season record, not based on any sort of division victory. A few examples of where it's explicitly mentioned as rounds, instead of what would be expected (divisional round): 1, 2, 3, 4. Additionally, see page 454 of the Bucs' media guide here.
  • Note B: "switching with fellow 1976 expansion team, the Seattle Seahawks" - This quoted part needs to be moved to the next sentence with Dugar 2022 as it's not verified with Reuters.
I re-used the reference instead of rephrasing it, as the phrasing is fluid and better than what would be written if moved to the second portion of the note.
    • "The goal of this schedule, and the division swap, was to have the expansion franchises play every other team in the 28-team league by the end of the second season" - Not seeing this part in Dugar 2022. It can be removed as the previous sentence already explains that the Seahawks and Buccaneers had played every team by '77.
I read it as as a reasonable interpretation of the text in the source personally, and I think it's important to mention it explicitly. Otherwise it makes it sound like a mistake that was corrected the next year instead of being intended.
  • Note E: Snider 2023 does not specify that that the 1987 season was reduced to 15 games. New reference needed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Replaced the reference. It has also been replaced in other similar seasons lists in which it was used.

Prose

  • "was originally awarded to Tom McCloskey, a construction company owner from Philadelphia, but was later awarded to Culverhouse after McCloskey backed out." - The bolded parts need removing/rewriting as it copies Sports Illustrated.
I don't believe the text is close enough to be concerning, and when I sought a second opinion from someone else, they also agreed. I think this may be overthinking, because the franchise was awarded to someone, not granted, and there's not a better way to say that McCloskey backed out of ran a construction company in Philly
  • "at which point the team passed on to his six children" - Malorana 2021 doesn't say all 6 children became owners. This Guardian source said 3 siblings became chairs while the other 3 already held executive roles. If you want to keep Maiorana 2021, then I suggest changing six children -> children.
The source says: Malcolm's children – sons, Avram, Kevin, Bryan, Joel and Edward, and daughter, Darcie S. Glazer Kassewitz, who were all born in Rochester and co-inherited his business holdings... Additionally, the Buccaneers website itself lists all 6 as owners.
  • "first in Super Bowl XXXVII during the 2002 season and again in Super Bowl LV during the 2020 season." The sentence needs this PFR ref or another ref that specifies the Super Bowl names/years.
Reference added
  • "in the Super Bowl-era to go winless in a season that was not shortened by a strike" - needs rewording to avoid copying of NFL Quick Take and NFL Those 1976 Buccaneers in order to pass WP:LIMITED. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
I completely disagree on this one. The bolded parts are the entirely key component of what makes the stat significant, and there's no other way to word those, nor is it actually a copyvio in any way.
Thank you for the review MrLinkinPark333, I've responded to all of your points. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Replies: Here's my replies on what I think is left to resolve @Hey man im josh::

  • PFR has them as Central in 1982. If you want to keep 1982 division blank, I think it would be better to add to Note D that they started out in the Central division (with a ref) before they became divisionless.
The reference for the note clearly verifies that divisions were out for that season, and would adequately override the general reference for the specific aspect of the row that it's verifying. Additionally, since teams were not playing in divisions, it'd be inappropriate to add it in in this instance.
  • Same source also calls 1982 playoffs as Wild Card. If you have a different source that calls it First Round, it'll be needed here instead.
So, I shared 5 sources in my previous reply that specifically referred to it as rounds instead of wild card, including one from the Buccaneers themselves. I also, prior to this, added a reference to the Buccaneers media guide (which was linked in my previous reply) which calls it "1982 NFC FIRST ROUND PLAYOFF GAME" on page 454.
  • Note B: the source says "by the end of their second seasons, both teams had played every opponent in the 28-team league." It does not indicate that this was a "goal". Therefore, I suggest "The goal of this schedule, and the division swap, was to have the expansion franchises play" -> "This schedule, and the division swap, had the expansion franchises play"
While I believe the existing reference should be enough, I went ahead and added 2 more references that clearly verify that this was the intended goal.
  • For McCloskey/Culverhouse, I suggest rewriting the sentence to "was originally awarded to Tom McCloskey, but was later awarded to Culverhouse after McCloskey withdrew." - My main concern is the "a construction company owner from Philadelphia" copied part. This can be resolved by removing it entirely.
Saying he withdrew implies that the deal was not already made. He backed out of a deal that was made. I don't think removing the source of the wealth that allowed him to bid for an NFL team makes it better, nor do I think stating that is close enough paraphazing to be problematic. I sought out yet another voice on the matter who agreed that it would be not be considered a copyvio in its current wording.
  • In 1976 Buccaneers, it says "The Baltimore Colts went 0-8-1 during the strike-shortened 1982 season". In Quick Pick, it says "a regular season winless in the Super Bowl era" - Therefore, this is close paraphrasing. My main concern is the "winless in the Super Bowl era" part. Here's a suggested rewrite: "the Buccaneers were the only team since the Super Bowl started to lose all their games in a season not effected by a strike.

-MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It is not close paraphrasing to use common terminology, there's not another way to say that without saying it in a way that sounds awful or clunky. The Super Bowl era is a frequently used term, and it's half of the qualifying factor (time), while winless is the other aspect of the qualifying statistic. The Cowboys for example went 0–11–1 in 1960, pre-Super Bowl era. Some other examples can be found at List of winless seasons#National Football League.
I've replied to all of the points MrLinkinPark333. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support on verification check. Although I disagree with the 2 sentences that I believe are close paraphrasing, this is not one of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria listed. I thought I should mention them as well. Perhaps another user can take a look at these sentences and leave their opinion in their section. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 21:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  • 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=User:Hey_man_im_josh/sandbox&oldid=1281318707"