Misplaced Pages

:Featured list candidates/2002 NFL Expansion Draft/archive1 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates | 2002 NFL Expansion Draft

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2012Olympian (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 2 October 2008 (2002 NFL Expansion Draft: edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:15, 2 October 2008 by 2012Olympian (talk | contribs) (2002 NFL Expansion Draft: edits)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

--SRX 00:10, 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)

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.
  • 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)

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

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

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

Comments

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