Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft

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 User:Scorpion0422 04:02, 26 July 2008 [1].

List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft edit

I am nominating this article for featured list status because I believe it is complete and referenced and meets all the criteria of a featured list. This is modeled after another featured list, List of East Carolina Pirates in the NFL Draft. Reorion (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've done a peer review for it, and as those items have been resolved, I feel it's among the best lists on Wikipedia at the present time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lists should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order.--Crzy cheetah 06:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Doing.~~ Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Converted table to earliest-to-latest chronological order. Reorion (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't expect it to be done this quick. I'll review the list later.--Crzy cheetah 23:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- "latest NFL Draft" - put a timeframe on it.
  - Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COLOR says not to use color alone to identify a particular attribute. You need to use an asterisk, dagger or similar with the colour.
  - Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On my screen there's plenty of space down the right hand side of the table for some more images.
  - Added some pictures, will look around on Flickr for some more CC-BY and CC-BY-SA of drafted players. Reorion (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a position key should be supplied for non-experts.
  - Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1948 reference cell is missing on my browser.
  - Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A large number of the players don't have articles, why not?
  - Will start making stub articles on first/second rounders and those who made an impact with their NFL teams. Reorion (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I tend to discourage overlinking, when listing out Pro Bowls etc, I think it's worth linking them each time because I don't want to have to go off and find the first instance which is linked.
  - Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the superscripted NFL and AFL explained anywhere?
  - Second paragraph now explains the two separate draft from 1960–1966 and the common draft 1967–1969. Footnotes in the table denotes what the superscripted AFL/NFL are. Reorion (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is DraftHistory.com. a work while HogNation.net. a publisher?
  - Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please avoid using the done and notdone templates. Just a comment is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Will do. Reorion (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Players aren't robots or things: "who", not "that".
- Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comma before "but".
- Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Drafted" twice in two phrases; possible to change one?
- Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Six players were selected from the 2008 NFL Draft with the highest selection being running back Darren McFadden,...". This is not good prose. Try "Six players were selected from the 2008 NFL Draft; the highest selection was running back Darren McFadden,..."
- Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tendency to write over-long sentences; the last one in Para 2 makes my head spin—and the content is beyond me. Who's the readership here?
- ~~Will work on shortening the sentences.~~ Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't know if the current version is any better but it is more clear than before. Reorion (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dashes centred in the Notes column, please. Don't we have a rule about this? If not, we should. They look like funny little spikes at the moment.
- Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Captions: when they're just nominal groups, no dot at the end. See MOS on captions.
- Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent colour scheme in table (pastels); it's rather vertical, like a skyscraper, because you're squeezing pics in at the right. Guess it doesn't matter. TONY (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added pictures based from the third comment from The Rambling Man. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the table's columns need to have a flexible width. The Notes and References columns are needlessly huge on my screen because I'm at 1440x900, widescreen format. It looks pretty bad. I suggest just using a fixed width on all the columns, or even better, no set width at all. Gary King (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain this? (by the way, I accidentally deleted something from the table that had made the reference columns look huge as everything go shifted over one in one of the rows). --Reorion (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks better now Gary King (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nicely referenced and equally impressive as the East Carolina list. Nice job man! Geologik (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good. Even though it isn't as good as the East Carolina list:). PG Pirate 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.