List of Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft picks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
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)
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)
{{cite news}}
instead of {{cite web}}
.via
parameter added to mention USA Today?{{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.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.
Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
List of Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft picks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
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)
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)
{{cite news}}
instead of {{cite web}}
.via
parameter added to mention USA Today?{{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.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.
Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)