Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Las Vegas Raiders first-round draft picks/archive1

List of Las Vegas Raiders first-round draft picks[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of Las Vegas Raiders first-round draft picks/archive1

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, getting close to finally wrapping up the first-round pick series. This list is nomination #9 in the series for me and, pending its promotion, would be #29 in the series to be promoted. 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) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69[edit]

I've been curious about reviewing one of these sports-related lists for a while now. Saving a spot for later. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being willing to review my nomination @TechnoSquirrel69! For future reference though, it's unnecessary to reserve/save a spot. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware, I just like to put my name down to commit myself to it and to let you know you have a review coming. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: Just following up on this since it's been a couple of weeks. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, Josh, this review just got swept up with a lot of other things that have been keeping me busy for the last week. I'm hoping to get some comments in for you before next weekend with a source review to boot. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully I'm hoping to have a source review before then. This is why it's generally best not to "reserve" review spots. It puts us in a weird limbo if someone else provides one and I have enough reviews for promotion but am waiting on a review from someone who's reserved a spot. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Citation numbers from this revision.

In citations 6 and 10: change hyphens (-) to en dashes (–).
In citation 23: AP News → Associated Press
What makes the Daily Norseman a reliable source? It seems to be just like any other blog hosted on SB Nation, and its staff page indicates no editorial oversight.
A few random spot-checks did not turn up any issues.

Let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: Thank you for the source review. I've fixed citations 6 and 10. Is there any reason why I should be changing AP News to Associated Press? My understanding is they are under the same umbrella, but it's more accurate to list the source as AP News instead of Associated Press to slightly differentiate the source (department). The Daily Norseman is nothing special in terms of reliability, but it's about the only one that has outright stated that Hackbart signed with the Green Bay Packers instead of the Raiders. For the factoid that it's verifying, I do believe it's reliable enough. The alternative would be to piece together a number of sources which show that he clearly played for the Packers instead of the Raiders, but that's not quite the same or as clear cut as showing that in text. There isn't inherently anything that makes the source unreliable, and if it were a more contested fact I'd probably go through the effort of utilizing 5+ sources to get that specific bit verified, but, given the weight of the statement, I do believe the source is adequate. This link shows he was drafted by the Packers and Raiders, it shows stats in the 1960 season for Hackbart playing for the Packers, but it doesn't outright state that he signed for the Packers instead whereas the other source does. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a meaningful difference between using "AP News" rather than "Associated Press", as you've done in other citations, then it can be kept as is. As for the Daily Norseman, I'm inclined to assess it as an unreliable self-published source unless there's a reason to believe otherwise, such as the author being a widely-recognized expert, or the publication being cited in other reliable sources. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: I'd be more inclined to assess the source as WP:NEWSBLOG. This is an official subfork of SB Nation, albeit with lesser oversight, and doesn't quite the fit the definition of a group blog. I spent hours looking for a statement about Hackbart signing with the Packers over Oakland, but it's been impossible to find. The alternative is WP:SYNTH of sources in a way that leaves a gap and forces us to make assumptions. The only other possible source I've found, which I've just now realized MIGHT be appropriate, is this. It's confusing, because it essentially lists two authors, but one of them is listed as a team historian (Jerry Knaak), while the other (David Griffin) is listed on the Raiders' front office roster. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment, and prior discussions here and here indicate other editors are also less than impressed by SB Nation blogs, especially if they lack editorial oversight. The link you shared is also not an ideal source, but I'd be willing to accept it to verify the statements in the article currently citing the Daily Norseman. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: As always, context is key, and not all sub sites of SB Nation are considered unreliable. In fact, the Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide points to there being no consensus on the sub sites of SB Nation. There's nothing to suggest the information, and the weight of the information being verified (non-controversial) in the source is incorrect. There's simply no other sources in the hours I've searched that states the same thing, the article is not improved by removing that fact, and we don't currently have a reason to believe the source might be wrong. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've said everything I have to say about the reliability of the Daily Norseman. I'd also like to remind you of the verifiability, not truth principle; unreliable sources are no more acceptable in cases where "we don't currently have a reason to believe the source might be wrong" than any other. I'm not advocating for removing that content from the article, just the replacement of the source. Why not incorporate Jerry Knaak's article you shared above instead? As far as I can see, it verifies the same information and is something I'm inclined to assess as a primary source in the same vein as articles coming from the Raiders' website considering the contributors' histories. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: This has not been defined as an unreliable source, that's the issue. You believe it to be unreliable, I do not, that's the crux of the disagreement. This is being evaluated as if it's a controversial fact, but the weight of the information being verified is relevant when evaluating sources, and the weight of this statement is miniscule. I was hesitant to add the second source because Exposure.co is for making visual stories, which doesn't scream reliable source, and, frankly, we have no verification that that is the person they're claiming to be. It's not linked from the Raiders website anywhere I can, so that doesn't help. Never the less, I've gone ahead and added the source, despite disagreeing with the weight of the sources. I did not remove the Daily Norseman reference and see no reason to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; given that there's no consensus in the community or between the two of us on this source, that's probably the best compromise we can come to. Source review passed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment[edit]

In the key, the entire phrase "inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame" should be included in the link in the spirit of WP:EASTEREGG. The way it's currently linked, I'd expect it to lead to Pro Football Hall of Fame, not List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees.

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this comment, but I've addressed this in all 12 of the lists in this series that I've worked on. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it on 12 more articles in the series as well. Every list in the series now properly links to the Pro Football Hall of Fame instead of the list of inductees. Just gonna ping you so you know this is done @TechnoSquirrel69. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

"He he nine seasons" (in photo caption)
"The team departed Oakland to play in Los Angeles from the 1982 season through the 1994 season, becoming the "Los Angeles Raiders" during this time" - I would lose the last three words, as they could be taken to mean that they changed their name at some (unspecified) point in the middle of that 12-year period, rather than at the start
"The team has [singular] played their [plural]"
That's it, I think! Great work as ever, Josh! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review @ChrisTheDude! I've made changes based on your always valuable feedback :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

Founded on January 30, 1960, as the Oakland Raiders -- Possibly worth linking their old names Oakland Raiders and Los Angeles Raiders, as seeing they have wiki articles.
I also don't think you need to put their old names in quotations.
Oakland -- I would also link this, since you have linked Los Angeles.
Nothing else to quibble. Solid work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

Images have alt text
Images are appropriately licensed.
Images are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review @Pseud 14! I've made changes based on your feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

Wikilink "wide receiver" and "return specialist" in the lead image's caption.
The note for Fabian Washington is missing a period after "Vikings".

That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catches, I've made the appropriate changes. Thanks @MPGuy2824! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007[edit]

This led to a massive bidding war over top prospects between the two leagues, "massive" comes across as a bit MOS:PUFFERY. I don't see that wording used in the sources. I think "bidding war" alone conveys what is needed.
; he was the team's territorial selection. - recommend wrapping in parenthesis instead. This is somewhat of an afterthought/addition and makes a bit more sense instead of a semi-colon.

Neither of those issues withhold my support. Nice work Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review @Gonzo fan2007! I've removed the word "massive" from the 5 relevant AFL first-round pick articles I've worked on, this one included of course. As for the parenthesis, I'll give it some though, but I won't implement it at this time. I'd like to keep it consistent across the series and I want to mull it over whether it's better that way or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]