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) 12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]


Portland Trail Blazers draft history[edit]

Portland Trail Blazers draft history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazertalk 23:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm back with my second FLC while I wait for my first one to be resolved. I decided to work on another NBA list and have worked on this one off and on over the last few months. This one is about the draft selections of the Portland Trail Blazers beginning with their first pick back in 1970 and the accomplishments of many of them while playing for the team. -- ZooBlazertalk 23:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

Will review soon- upon first look, the lead is very long. The lead should most certainly be divided with headers and reorganized appropriately. Perhaps "History" or "Statistics" or something else. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've divided up the lead with headers.
I'm also in the process of adding the missing players from the table, which may take a day or two. At first I thought it would just be extra clutter to add every single pick when most missing players aren't notable, but I looked at draft history articles for other teams and many include even the non notable players. - This is now finished. -- ZooBlazertalk 01:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk Would you still be willing to do a review if you have a chance? ZooBlazer 06:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer, completely forgot, thanks for reminding me. After looking through and making some minor changes, I only have one comment: the coloration on the table headers is making the up and down arrows not visible. Is there any way to have them visible? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk Hmm, I'm not sure. Looking at other all-time roster articles, it looks like the template (((NBA all-time roster))) always makes the arrows black regardless of the team colors used. I don't know if there is something that can be updated in the template or if the table in the article can be individually changed to make the arrows white or red. ZooBlazer 15:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's a standard part of the template, I don't think it's too disagreeable. Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment
More comments
  • The black header making the sort arrows invisible isn't ok. I know it's their colors, but those need to be visible so that the reader knows they exist.
  • The stripes are...odd. I think they're okay accessibility-wise? But I'm pretty sure to a lot of readers it's just noise, especially some of the color combinations. I know EN-Jungwon asked to have the colors match the symbols instead of just a single color last summer, but I don't think they were right. I don't know of any better way to display multiple colors in a row then what you have, but I don't think it works well right now. --PresN 03:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce and PresN: How does it look now? It turns out the basketball cells have a second version where it uses the team's secondary color, so the arrows can be seen now. And instead of the color lines, I created new parts of the key that merged accolades into one symbol and color. -- ZooBlazer 05:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much, much better. Combining the awards makes a lot of sense. I can't commit to doing a full prose review, but on the table portion I can support this nomination. SounderBruce
Love it, thanks! --PresN 18:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.