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]

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]