Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Houston Texans Pro Bowl selections/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 09:19, 5 January 2012 [1].

List of Houston Texans Pro Bowl selections[edit]

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Texans have made it to the playoffs, and I could have possibly written my first FL. History's already decided the first one, so let's see the latter one pan out. Help would be appreciated. Buggie111 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The list is well presented with a good introduction and comprehensively referenced.

However, I wonder if the decision to use 9 separate lists by year is the best choice? Wouldn't a single sortable list where the the year was the first field allow more functionality? See if any other commentators feel the same before any major revisions, as it may just be me who thinks that way.
All of the column headings would benefit from scope="col" per WP:DTAB. If you do decide to go with a single list, then the year would be a reasonable choice for a row header (scope="row"), unless you preferred player name (but I see that e.g. Andre Johnson features several times, making that less useful as a row header).
Have you got any more pictures? Not essential, but they do brighten up articles, so I'd encourage you to look for a few more if possible. All images must have alt text.

I'll have another look in a day or two, or ping me if you want specific advice. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review!

I'll wait for others to decide if a single list is better. Or I could just list players, with the years they went, but then the stats would disappear.
Can't seem to understand it. Mind doing '02 as an example?
Will do on the images.Buggie111 (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done on number three. Buggie111 (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose – I'm sorry to do this, but I must disagree with the reviewer above, whom I respect very much. I don't find the lead to be that great, and the referencing leaves something to be desired there. If only that was the extent of it...

Bold links are discouraged by the MoS. This covers the Pro Bowl and Houston Texans links.
"The NFL's all-star game has a tattered image." I have a pair of major concerns with this sentence. First, "tattered image" is directly from the source as indicated by the quote "the tattered image of the NFL's all-star contest." This verges on a close paraphrasing issue. Second, this is a POVish statement that cries out for proper attribution.
More close paraphrasing: "It is the only major all-star game that draws lower ratings than its regular-season games" versus "it's the only major all-star game that draws lower ratings than regular-season matchups." With examples like these, why should I trust that the rest of the text doesn't have similar problems?
"However, the biggest concern of players is to avoid injuries to the star players." Redundant and doesn't make any sense. Players want to avoid injuries to players? Also, the phrase "biggest concern" appears in the source; while not the end of the world, it adds to my other concerns above.
Nothing is sourcing the third and fourth paragraphs. There are several items that could really use cites, none more so than "Being a Pro Bowler is considered to be a mark of honor, and players who are accepted into the Pro Bowl are considered to be elite." Says who?
The start of the fifth paragraph looks like it was taken directly from the team's article, with no adjustments made to reflect the prior lead text. AFC and NFL links are repeated, as are the abbreviations following them.
A cite for the 2011 division title wouldn't hurt, since I don't see where that's backed up.
In the last sentence, all of the references should be after punctuation, not before.
Check images to make sure that they have alt text. I notice the lead image doesn't.
List: The title of this section isn't descriptive at all. How about Pro Bowl selections or similar?
Don't think "Starter", "Reserve", or "Alternate" need capitalization in the intro.
Intro could use a period at the end.
Some more over-capitalization in the tables. Some positions are listed with too much capitalization, and the last two words of the "Regular Season Stats" heading shouldn't be capitalized. None of these things are proper nouns or titles, which should be capitalized.
If it was up to me, I'd make this a one-table list, keeping in mind that the size would be more manageable that way over the long term. However, the issues above are more important for now.
Can you please check all the publishers listed as Pro-Footbal-Reference.com? This simply shouldn't be present at FLC
On a second look, the third and fourth paragraphs are directly taken from our Pro Bowl article. This blatant copying of another article is simply unacceptable for a featured piece of content. I can understand borrowing style/structural elements from other similar lists in certain cases, but ripping off writing from the main article is a terrible way of doing things. That and the close paraphrasing issues should be enough for this list to be quick-failed. Giants2008 (Talk) 04:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the copying. I looked at other FL's like 1908 Summer Olympics medal table and thought this was the modus operandi. Instead, I think i should use List of Indianapolis Colts first-round draft picks as an example of rewriting leads. I'll get to work on the other points solely to lessen the amount of work when I re-nom. Buggie111 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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