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: 15 days, 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 Comment. Issues in 'Oppose' and 'comments' have been addressed. Promote. --Kalyan 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I worked on this list the last two days using the recently featured 2003 NBA Draft list as a guide. I think this list can be featured, too. If there are any concerns, I would be glad to address them. Thank you. --Crzycheetah 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment What was your criteria to say that that undrafted player was notable? At least provide some reference from the press saying that it was expected for him to be drated and ended up not being. Other than that, it looks good, I think.--Serte[ Talk · Contrib ] 08:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There was only one player listed there, who did not participate in the draft at all; therefore, I removed that section. --Crzycheetah 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
CONDITIONAL SUPPORT: I think there are a few things that needs to be addressed before giving a FL for this article:
1. "The 2004 NBA Draft in which National Basketball Association (NBA) teams take turns ..." ... the term NBA is used in abbreviation even before it is explained. I think that the acronym can be avoided.
2. "The draft was broadcast on ESPN at 7:00 PM (EDT)." - If it was broadcast at 7 PM, was it a live event or was the broadcast carried later. It is much better to club this info to the earlier sentence, if possible.
3. Reference required - "NBA announced that 56 college and high school players and a 38 international players had filed as early-entry candidates for the draft."
4. "won the NBA Draft Lottery on May 26" - the fact that the draft lottery is used for the no. 1 pick is not coming out. for a casual person, there is a chance he will miss this.
5. "...The Los Angeles Clippers and the Chicago Bulls were second and third respectively." is followed later by "made forward Emeka Okafor the franchise's historical first rookie draft pick with the second overall selection" and "The Bobcats had been assigned the fourth selection in the draft and did not participate in the 2004 NBA Draft Lottery". the sentences are very confusing. Was the order magic, clippers, bears and bobcats? If so, did the bobcats move from 4 to 2? that needs to be stated. Another point. I think the addition of a new team is significant and needs to be mentioned in the first para itself (see 2002 NFL Draft)
6.the logo doesn't need border
7. With respect to "Notable undrafted player" - the criteria needs to be added. Did this person go undrafted, but joined the team after trying out as rookie free-agent. Was he the only one of the year? or did 2004 draft produce other rookie-free agents.
Please resolve these. Kalyan 11:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
All comments addressed. I have a couple more below. these were added on re-review. Kalyan 07:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe I resolved all of your concerns. --Crzycheetah 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
1. First sentence incomplete - "The 2004 NBA Draft in which National Basketball Association teams take turns selecting amateur college basketball players and other first-time eligible players."
2. Can you please add Ben Gordon's dual-citizenship as note, so that there remains no confusion
Not withstanding these 2 comments, i think the article is FL material. Kalyan 07:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
As a note, after his second nationality (U.K.), there is a source that clearly states Ben can play for either USA national team or UK natinonal team. It is obvious that you have to be a citizen of a country in order to play for its national team. --Crzycheetah 07:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
How and why he has citizenship to both countries needs to be explained. Buc 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be explained on his page, not here.--Crzycheetah 18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. In this page, I've provided a source saying that He can play for either of those countries, that's all that matters for a basketball fan. There is also a link to Ben Gordon's bio page for the further info about him, all one needs to do is to click on his name. It would be really bias and unfair to other players if we wrote Ben Gordon's biography on the nba draft page.Crzycheetah 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I never said you needed to write his biography. All that is needed is a small note saying how he is eligible to play for both. "that's all that matters for a basketball fan." What about non-basketball fans? Buc 05:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Non-basketball fans can just click on the footnote next to UK's flag and learn that he is eligible to play for those teams. If they want more info on that they would logically click on the article I provided as a source.--Crzycheetah 07:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Is is not to have the info there so they don't have to click and snac through Gordons article? Buc 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to copy and paste the external article? I believe it's going to be a copyright violation.--Crzycheetah 20:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said before all that is needed is a small note. Buc 05:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
OK! Is "Ben Gordon was born in London, then emigrated to New York." ok? I personally don't like it.--Crzycheetah 06:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Historically, 1(a)1 was interpretated along the lines of "70% blue links". 7 red links in ANY long list is quite low. We have FAs that have more redlinks than that, and nobody opposed them over it.Circeus 03:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I count seven red links as well as Royal Ivey, Tim Pickett, Ricky Minard, and Romain Sato as stubs. Thats 11 poor articles. This is a good list, but I don't believe that this is not the "cream of the crop" of wikipedia lists. Warhol13 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I can go to WP:FL and find at least 250 lists that have red links or stub articles. Does that mean there are only 20-25 "cream of the crop" wikipedia lists? --Crzycheetah 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This list must stand on its own merits. I dont feel that it passes 1B. One or two red links might be OK but not seven. Warhol13 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe that 1b for this particular list means that it should include all drafted players' names, which it does. It doesn't even imply that the players' articles have to be comprehensive as well. If I nominated the 2004 NBA Draft page to the WP:FT, then it would fail because of all those stubby articles for the players.
Red links can be converted into stubs, but this list should not be harmed by poor quality of its members' articles.--Crzycheetah 04:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Crzycheetah I've faced this problem too (I really don't like this rule). Just create pages for the red links, it doesn't matter if they're stubs. Buc 20:42, 4 June 2007
No red links left.--Crzycheetah 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Support looks fine now. Buc 09:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Support. I think it is unnecessary to have a article for every player and that 7 red links would have been ok. However, according to WP:BIO, atheletes, who competed at the highest level in amateur sports meets the requirements. And since division 1 NCAA mens basketball would be considered the highest level in America, those articles are fine. Everything looks in order here; nice job Crzycheetah. Pepsidrinka 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)