Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Green Bay Packers general managers/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Green Bay Packers general managers[edit]
List of Green Bay Packers general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following in the footsteps of the head coaches and presidents lists, I now have the general manager list for the Packers. I will pre-emptively state that this list wasn't the easiest, as there are multiple times in Packers' history where there was no GM, but obviously someone(s) still had the authority to act like a GM. This list is based off of what the Packers have established as their own list of GMs (see here and here). Happy to address any concerns or comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14[edit]
- In 1923, a publicly-owned, non-profit organization called the Green Bay Football Corporation -- organization name should not be in italics
- and serves as spokesperson -- should serve be in the past tense?
- That's all from me. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review : Passed
- Images have alt text
- Images are relevant and provides context for its use in the tables
- Images are appropriately licensed as PD, as well as AGF on self-published image. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pseud 14, I have implemented both of your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- MPGuy2824
- "In the year's" to "In the years".
- "Team record" should have scope as colgroup. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 12 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Ref 7 – Is there any reason you used a hyphen instead of a vertical dash here, like the target uses?
- Ref 8 – Change to cite magazine and change website to a blusher of Sports Illustrated
- Ref 10 – I notice it's not like other references to the Green Bay Press-Gazette website, in that, it mentions USA Today beside the author's name. I understand they're owned by USA Today, but it's unclear to me whether USA Today should be listed as the agency in this instance. Any thoughts on that?
- Ref 15 – Missing publisher
- Could you add the {{Use American English|date=April 2024}} and {{Use mdy dates|date=April 2024}} templates to the top of the article under the short description? That way if more refs are added they'll be properly formatted (date wise).
That's all I've got, good stuff as always Gonzo, even if I hate the Packers! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh, all addressed. Regarding Ref 10, the difference is that the other GBPG articles are from Newspapers.com. I don't usually include USAToday in these types of refs, just too deep info when the newspaper and link is already included, imho. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: Ref 16 as an example doesn't include that bit that ref 10 does. I agree and understand about not including the parent company, but I was wondering if 10 should be treated as re-posting a story from a wire service instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh, my understanding is that USA Today is not a wire service, so "agency=" wouldn't be appropriate. I could do "via=" if you really want, but just to note I haven't done that before. I think if there wasn't an author listed, I would probably agree with you. But I view this more as Todd McMahon writes for the whole network, not just the newspaper. The newspaper is just differentiating between an in-house newspaper sportswriter (like Richard Ryman). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: No, I won't ask you to do "via=" here. I think I agree with your view that Todd McMahon writes for the whole network and that it's just differentiating.
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh, my understanding is that USA Today is not a wire service, so "agency=" wouldn't be appropriate. I could do "via=" if you really want, but just to note I haven't done that before. I think if there wasn't an author listed, I would probably agree with you. But I view this more as Todd McMahon writes for the whole network, not just the newspaper. The newspaper is just differentiating between an in-house newspaper sportswriter (like Richard Ryman). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: Ref 16 as an example doesn't include that bit that ref 10 does. I agree and understand about not including the parent company, but I was wondering if 10 should be treated as re-posting a story from a wire service instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 20:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.