Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft picks/archive2

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is nomination #11 for me in this series and will hopefully be #31 in the series to be promoted. This is the second to last nomination in the series, so we're almost done! This nomination's format matches that of other AFL team lists I've helped to promote, such as the Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source & image review from Dylan620

I'm going to tackle a source review this time around – a (very) cursory glance is already promising, with extensive usage of at least two reliable sources that have been cited extensively in previous lists. Should be finished tomorrow or the day after. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review ~~on hold~~, details below:

The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use {{cite news}} instead of {{cite web}}.
Spot-checked refs 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 30 (ref numbers as they appear in this revision):
- Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a via parameter added to mention USA Today?
- Footnote A, cited to ref 24, states that the last pick in the first draft was No. 26 overall, but the source states No. 27.
- Ref 26 makes no mention of Charles Alexander; I would recommend additionally citing ref 24 in footnote F, since that one does mention Alexander.
- Adding {{rp|page(s)=n}} after each citation to ref 24 wouldn't hurt, just so the reader knows which page(s) specifically to look for the information that the source is being used to verify.
Source formatting is consistent across the board.
All sources are reliable enough for the information they are being used to verify.

After finishing the above source review, I decided to do an image review as well. Image review passes, details below:

All images that are present contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
All images have suitable alt text.
Sourcing for each image checks out, as do the sources for the captions.
The captions themselves are well-written.
All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.

Excellent work once again, Josh! I have no concerns with the images, and only a few quibbles with the sources; once those are resolved (or adequately explained), I look forward to supporting. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple minor things I forgot to mention:

"as a result of the 1970 AFL–NFL merger.[4][5][3]" – the refs should be listed in ascending order here.
"Only one of the team's first-round picks ... have been elected" – have → has

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use cite news instead of cite web . – Done.
Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a via parameter added to mention USA Today? – I actually hadn't noticed that and skipped the middle man by replacing the ref with the version from the Enquirer.
Footnote A, cited to ref 24, states that the last pick in the first draft was No. 26 overall, but the source states No. 27. – That's a definite mistake on my part. The mistake stems from the wording of "second and last pick in the round". Normally there'd be 26 picks in the round (1 per team) and I didn't factor in that this added a pick to the end of the round. Fixed.
Ref 26 makes no mention of Charles Alexander; I would recommend additionally citing ref 24 in footnote F, since that one does mention Alexander. – Normally it'd be fine not to mention Alexander, as the notes are mostly about how the pick was acquired / why the team's position in the draft changed. I use the reference at the top of the column to verify the player who was picked, their position, college, etc. So, while it's not explicitly cited in that note, it is verifiable based on the column reference. With that said, I noticed that my source I used didn't explicitly state the pick number, which is something I'm always trying to verify. As such, I did add another source to verify the info (from the Pro Football Hall of Fame).
Adding after each citation to ref 24 wouldn't hurt, just so the reader knows which page(s) specifically to look for the information that the source is being used to verify. – Personally I think the small page range (226–232) and the numbered subheadings for drafts in the source should be straight forward enough to make the information easy to find.
"as a result of the 1970 AFL–NFL merger.[4][5][3]" – the refs should be listed in ascending order here. – Is that an actual thing noted down anywhere? I personally prefer to use the references in the order that they would be verifying information for the sentence. For instance, if the lowest numbered ref (let's say 3), verified the end of the sentence, I would want to use it as the last reference despite the order. That may just be a stylistic preference of mine, but I'm now really curious if that's an MOS thing we should adhere to?
"Only one of the team's first-round picks ... have been elected" – have → has – Done.

I believe/hope I've addressed all of your concerns, pending a reply to a couple. Thanks so much for providing a source and image review and the helpful feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are correct about the ref ordering—I had seen it brought up as an issue in another FLC, which led me to point it out when noticing it in subsequent reviews I've conducted, but upon double-checking WP:CITEORDER, I read that both approaches are acceptable and it's all down to stylistic preference. All other fixes and explanations look/sound good to me. All that needs to be done now is for archived URLs to be added for the updated ref 4 and the newly added ref 27, but that is minor and easily fixable—the source review passes and I am pleased to support this FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Support promotion. No issues with the text or table accessibility. A couple of refs are missing archive links, but that's not a deal breaker. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824! I manually saved the two pages missing archive links to the Internet Archive. They should be available to IABot in about an hour and I'll be sure to re-run the bot to make sure that's addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

There would be a few recommendations (spelling out the positions, shorter See also section, etc) but we have discussed these and I respect your consistent approach.
Recommend adding File:Ja'Marr Chase.jpg as a recent and well-known draft pick.

Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, I've gone ahead and added that image. Thanks for the review and suggestion @Gonzo fan2007! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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