Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2003 NFL Draft

2003 NFL Draft

This has been brought to the quality level that the 2004-2006 NFL Drafts, all featured lists, have been brought up to. It is detailed with plenty of references, and the intro is also about as good as I can make it. --Wizardman 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks as good as the other years from what I can tell. VegaDark 04:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else? --Wizardman 04:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very comprehensive list, that tells you just about everything you need to know about this draft. Wonderful work. KOS | talk 08:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its very popular. Cocoaguy 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support on three changes:

The first "External link" 2003 NFL Draft is clearly the general reference used for this list and so should be named as the reference (a bullet point at the end of the References section). Less sure about the second one – did you use it as a reference or is it just supplementary info?
The citations/external link formatting need to be improved. You need to give the full title of the web page/news article, the author (if available), the publisher and the date published. The {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} templates are recommended.
The Mr Irrelevant comment isn't a reference (it is a footnote) and isn't really required since it just repeats what the lead says.

Colin°^Talk 09:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions 1 and 3 met, I'll work on #2. --Wizardman 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment/Small oppose~~ - format references using {{cite web}}. Renata 22:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know I never realized that references had to be cited like that. Learn as you go I guess. Anyway Colin and Renata, the refs have been fixed now. --Wizardman 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Live and learn, as they say. Renata 14:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't mean for you to remove the footnotes, which I've new restored. All that is required is that the citations are as complete and accurate as possible. The templates help by prompting you for such attributes as author, date, etc and do some simple formatting. Some folk prefer to hand-format so don't like the templates – they aren't mandatory. Don't bother with "format" for HTML pages – it is only useful for uncommon document types like PowerPoint or Word. Colin°^Talk 09:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could use another image. I don't know what could be found, but it looks like a wall of text. Other than that, though, it looks like a pretty good list. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]