Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

List of Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks edit

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. No outstanding issues Promote. Buc 18:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I (lovingly) ripped off the featured list List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks, right down to the paragraph about the NFL Draft. It's not that long, but then again the Panthers have only been around not even 15 years. Hopefully that will not preclude it from being featured simply because it's not as long as some of the other lists.

  • Support, nominator. Anthony Hit me up... 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, I'm not a big fan of all these articles having the same lead. It's redundant, uncreative, and lazy in my opinion. It's bad enough we have 1,000 NFL season articles starting "The [year] [team] season began with the team trying to improve on their [#-#] record from [year]...." Try to be a little creative with it, use your own words. Quadzilla99 13:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to support. I still think the prose in lead could be a little better though. Quadzilla99 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - reworded the lead to make it a little shorter; removed redundant information and now it doesn't copy the Bucs' article. Anthony Hit me up... 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Opinion at Present: I think the article needs some work.
  • 1. the first sentence of the lead para sounds odd - "This is a list of first-round draft picks made by the Carolina Panthers of the National Football League". needs re-wording
    • Both the Tampa Bay and Cleveland lists, which I am basing this on, have the same first sentence; there's really no other way to say it. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. need reference - "The Panthers joined the NFL in 1995 with the Jacksonville Jaguars." Question. In terms of expansion, where does panthers rank? add the #
  • 3. "The team's most-recent first-round selection was " - this would mean that you got to update the sentence every year. instead use the year as it is easier for someone to spot and replace
    • Again, both Tampa Bay and Cleveland have this exact sentence; since the page will have to be updated every year anyway, it's not much more work to do one more sentence. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. Please avoid the use of single sentence para - "The Panthers have never had the first overall selection; the ...".
  • 5. The para "This list concerns the first round ...." sounds very strange because of its positioning. if there is a place for the para - it is right after the first sentence or else it doesn't add value
Not a good reason. Either have the para right after the first sentence or remove it. Kalyan 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  YDone - I removed all but one sentence and placed it in the lead paragraph.Anthony Hit me up... 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6. "Note that due to their status as an expansion team, ....." - i have no idea why this statement was present
    •  YI put it in there to distinguish the Expansion Draft (which oddly doesn't have its own article); Rod Smith was technically the first draft pick the Panthers ever made, but he's not on this list. I reworded the sentence & added a reference to draw a distinction. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7. The lead para can include some analysis on the performance on the first round pick. for eg: Julius Peppers won the ROY (isn't it?)
    •  YWith all due respect, I don't think the lead paragraph should include any information on annual awards; the lead would become bloated with every Pro Bowl/All-Pro/ROY/MVP selected. HOFers are rare enough to draw their own distinction. However, I have included notes about awards under the "Notes" column. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, i am not asking you to list every award won by their players. i am asking for a summary of how the first-round draft picks performed. Any perennial All-pro? Any busts (I know it is difficult to label recent picks as all-pros/busts, but i am sure we can analyze the picks from a few years back. Kalyan 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a small paragraph about some of the picks and the struggles they've had... for a short-lived franchise, the Panthers have had a lot of problems (I know, I've been following them since Day 1, and it hasn't been easy lol). Anthony Hit me up... 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8. Since the article has less years to deal with - i think it needs more info. for eg: for each of the trades, please enter the player selected. for eg. "The Panthers obtained this pick from San Francisco in exchange for first- and fourth-round picks" would read better if it was "The Panthers obtained 28th overall selection (used to select Chris Gamble) from San Francisco in exchange for first round pick (xth overall pick, used to select y) and fourth round pick (xth overall pick, used to select y)
  • 9. I was a reviewed for the tampabay article and i think there should be an improvement in quality as we get more FLs. I am sure that we will go back to the TB FL article at a later time and bring it to the same level as this
    Please let me know if you have any questions. apologies if i have put too much out there. Kalyan 18:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it wasn't too much... at least not so much that I couldn't handle. I think I addressed most of the major concerns. As for the others, I was following the two lists that are featured, and they're minor wording issues at best; I hope you look at the article as a whole and realize that this is (now) in fact better than the other two featured lists (it contains much more details about the trades, along with pictures). Please let me know if there's more to be done. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A couple of minor points remain, but does not prevent FL for the article. Kalyan 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your support; I have addressed your remaining concerns. Anthony Hit me up... 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the notes should be centred. Buc 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 YDone - although to be honest, I think it looks worse with the notes centered than before. Anthony Hit me up... 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's a couple of things that are still bugging me:
    • "The Panthers joined the NFL in 1995, as the league's 29th franchise, with the Jacksonville Jaguars." This sentence reads awkwardly, it also says they were both the 29th franchise.
    • "The Panthers have had a hit-or-miss history of first-round picks." This needs a source, it reads like a personal observation.
    • "Rae Carruth had a promising career as a wide receiver," Same deal as the previous one. I also don't think this is true regardless if you get a source his numbers were pretty mediocre even when he did get on the field. Quadzilla99 07:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  YDone - removed the "hit or miss" statement, provided a source for Carruth's promising career, and slightly altered the 29th franchise sentence. The article has to mention that the Jags came into the league at the same time; there's really not too many ways you can phrase it differently, it is what it is (to quote John Fox, haha).Anthony Hit me up... 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comprehensive and well referenced. Looks very much like FL-quality. Sportskido8 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Note: I copyedited the lead section and are thus, a minor contributor.
    • I disagree with Buc and think the notes should be left aligned.
      •  YDone
    • The notes all need to be more concise, for instance you don't need to repeat the player's name every time. Example: "Brockermeyer made several All-Rookie teams." could more simply be "All-Rookie Team selection".
      •  YDone
This can still be better, don't start the notes with made or won; include the years of Peppers' Pro Bowls like under Morgan; I personally don't think the publication names are necessary, and All Rookie Team selection should be enough for Brockermeyer, Carruth, Peter, Gross, and Gamble but I'm not confident in that point.Timpcrk87 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)¶[reply]
Shored up a little bit more: Added Pro Bowl years for Collins & Peppers, and made some of the All-Rookie references shorter. I left the publication name in for Gross & Gamble because a: it's the only one and b: there's a wikilink to the publication, so it doesn't make it terrible. Other than that, fixed. Anthony Hit me up... 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure the header "Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks" needs to be on the table, after all that is the name of the article.
      •  YDone
    • Why is every school except UNC spelled out in the table, it should be consistent.
      •  YDone
    • I'm also not sure it is necessary to spell out the positions the first time they appear as long as the first appearance is wikilinked, it really clutters that column.
      •  YDone
Timpcrk87 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All concerns addressed & fixed. Anthony Hit me up... 20:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Support my concerns were addressed and the article looks very nice.Timpcrk87 05:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support lead looks fine now. Buc 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Carolina_Panthers_first-round_draft_picks&oldid=146599192"