Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Redskins first-round draft picks/archive1

List of Washington Redskins 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: 23 days, 3 support, 1 oppose. No consensus to promote. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination - I think this list is close to/has met Featured List criteria. I also believe that it is up to par with the other lists of Pro Football First Round picks (see List of Minnesota Vikings first-round draft picks and List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks). It also has references and is well set out. Thanks, Jwalte04 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but it would be nice to see some citations in the lead. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Let me know if thats enough citations. I'm just so glad someone commented! Jwalte04 02:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Don't worry about the lack of comments, it's been a slow period for many FLCs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry about the wait, it is a bit slow around here at the moment. It seems a good list. For someone like me, (a Brit with no idea about American football), the lead explained the draft and introduced the topic clearly. It is meticulously referenced and looks good. Well done. Woodym555 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Oppose
1. In the note #6, it states the word "considered", which begs for the question "by whom is it considered?" A reference would be nice.
2. ~~I think it would be better if you wrote down all team names in full in the footnotes section. Something like "...was traded to the Chicago Bears" instead of "...was traded to Chicago".~~
3. ~~The footnotes #30 and #31 should be combined, wasn't this just one trade? I mean the "...first picks in 1988 and 1989..." note sounds better.~~
4. I believe we need to have individual citations for those trades. I know that none of the other "first-round" lists have them, but at least 2007 NFL Draft has.
5. The teams are overlinked in the footnotes, although it doesn't matter to me personally.

Overall, great job!--Crzy cheetah 08:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Done Changed it to "This draft choice remains one of the...". This works because he is still the only ineligible player to be chosen in the draft accidentally.
Done Have changed all names in footnotes to full team names.
Done Combined footnotes 30 and 31. Still had footnote 31 state "See citation above." just so people are aware that there was a trade that year.
Not done I got all the trade info mostly from the Professional Football Transactions Archive and other team sites. I don't know how I would go about citing footnotes. If people think that it is necessary, just show me how.

Jwalte04 (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I am really opposing it now because I find that the trade notes are incomplete. Most of the trade notes do not state what the Redskins received for their draft picks.Note #6 still remains to be WP:OR. As for the citations, look for them in the official website, ESPN's website, or in the local newspaper websites. --Crzy cheetah 21:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ok I have taken out the whole "biggest blunders" part of Footnote 6.Jwalte04 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done"Most of the trade notes do not state what the Redskins received for their draft picks". I have written as many trade details as I could find using the Professional Football Transactions Archive, Google News Archive, Washington Post Archive, and every single official team page in the NFL for their draft histories. If you have any other ideas of where I could look, it would be much appreciated. Jwalte04 (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]