Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:47, 2 October 2008

2002 NFL Expansion Draft

It has a solid, well-referenced lead section. The lead is the most comprehensive of the NFL Expansion Draft lists. The list is complete, easy to navigate, and looks good.--2008Olympian _chitchat 08:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The image positioning is terrible IMO. Remove the logo for the NFL WikiProject and replace it's positioning with the official logo of the Expansion Draft and make it a thumbnail with a caption, looks better in that way IMO.
  • Fixed.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• The Houston Texans picked from lists of unprotected players from existing franchises. - what does unprotected mean?
  • Removed word.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Since this was the first expansion draft after the advent of the salary cap, unlike in previous expansion drafts, teams left many quality players on the list who has large contracts. - has --> had
  • Fixed.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• They could not expose players who went on injured reserve during the 2001 summer's training camp and their list could include only one player with more than 10 years' experience. - they could not expose them? What do you mean by this?
  • Replaced with "could not list players" to keep uniform with explanation of process.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• The Texans assumed the contracts of the players they selected, including all the future prorations of their signing bonuses and any guarantees or other terms. - prorations is not a dictionary word.
  • Changed to "portion," but see dictionary definition of Proration.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• If the Texans cut a selection and he re-signed with his old team, the existing team re-assumed the signing bonus proration. - proration?
  • Changed to "portion," but see dictionary definition of Proration.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• The prose in the lead is really confusing, it does not explain terms and the purpose of the draft expansion really well.
  • Fleshed out the intro.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• I am going to have to object this list because their is no reason explained as to why the Texans were having this draft or why they became established.
  • Fleshed out the intro.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 00:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• That selection was provided by the 2002 National Football League Expansion Draft, held on February 18, 2002 NFL. - typo in pipelink
• overlink of 2002 NFL Draft, only link once in the same section (the lead)
• Each NFL team exposed five players, and the Texans were required to claim either 30 players or $26 million in contracts (38% of the 2002 salary cap). - again with the word expose.
• I think salary cap should be explained in some short way because it is jargon and linking it is no help as the definition is non comprehensible to one who is not aware of football jargon
• What is verifying the list? No references to reliable sources.--S_RX 23:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really like tables that are forced to take up the entire page when they don't have to. It leaves a lot of ugly whitespace. Could you just let the table have it's natural widths? -- Scorpion 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, done. --2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I hate to oppose anything. I usually just don't support. But this just isn't up to par. The wiki project NFL logo looks like what it is a cheap ripoff. It's not really needed either. Surely there is more to it (the list) than this. Did you take it to Peer Review? Dincher (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Logo removed. And this is the complete expansion draft for that year. --2008Olympian _chitchat 07:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Still oppose the lead could be expanded more. Perhaps mention that David Carr was the first draft choice of the standard draft. References for the chose players previous team would be good too. Dincher (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm open to other suggestions to expand the lead that have to do with the expansion draft. I can't find any other information about that draft that is not included. I think that who the picks were in the 2002 NFL Draft belong in that article. And as for references for the chosen players previous team, every noted player is wikilinked to that player's page, where their playing history is listed, and it mentions that they were selected in the expansion draft.--2008Olympian _chitchat 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Is the image used really public domain? The logo looks an awful lot like the official Houston Texans logo.
• Unlink years in the lead even if they link to season pages; most readers won't get that they link to specific season pages. They are fine in the table, however.
  • This is common practice across all Project NFL pages, not just this one.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove the leading zeroes in the Pick column
  • Without the leading zeros, the sort function will sort the picks 1-10-11-12-...2-20-21-22-...3-30-31-etc.--2008Olympian _chitchat 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Use {{nts}}. Gary King (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, leading zeros removed.--2008Olympian _chitchat 08:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Per WP:LEAD, don't link the bolded text.
  • Fixed. --2008Olympian _chitchat 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• First sentence: Why not "Houston, Texas"?
  • Added. --2008Olympian _chitchat 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Some season links are linked more than once.
  • Fixed. --2008Olympian _chitchat 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals.
  • Changed, but please note that the all caps came from the original source. --2008Olympian _chitchat 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but in this case MOS wants them not in all capitals even when the original source has all capitals. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)