Jump to content

Talk:E. J. Smith (American football)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Cbl62 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Just a comment: this hook may be interesting to American football fans, but it is virtually meaningless to readers like me who have no idea (a) who Emmitt Smith is, and (b) what sport the hook is referring to. 97198 (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Emmitt Smith is one of the greatest to ever play American football, holding the all-time record in career rushing yardage. His son is now one of the top two prospects at his dad's position. To an American audience, it should prove very interesting. Not all hooks need have worldwide appeal. Cbl62 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did just now add a link to the sport to clarify that bit. Cbl62 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the above comments. Wikipedia is not USpedia. A hook that mainly appeals to American audiences only does not mean it appeals to a broad audience. Perhaps if said American football player was at least relatively well-known internationally, like Tom Brady, such a hook could potentially have worked. As it stands, I don't think Smith is well-known outside the US, so that's not going to work. In addition, it also assumes that the reader is familiar with the running back position. Americans and maybe Canadians would likely understand the hook, but it would have just as much appeal to international audiences as a cricket-focused hook would appeal to Americans. That's not to say that an internationally-appealing hook about American football is impossible. That's very much possible. However, given that American football is not as popular as the other Big Four sports outside the US, you need to keep international audiences in mind and make sure the hook is understandable regardless of the reader's familiarity with American football.
Having said that, the article itself does meet DYK requirements. It is new enough, long enough, and the hook is cited inline and verified. A QPQ has been done. However, the hook as currently written is problematic. Not just for the interest reasons discussed above by myself and 97198, but also because I'm not a fan of how the hook subject focuses of him being "Emmit Smith's son" instead of naming the subject himself. I think there's some potential in the "two best running backs" angle. Perhaps a hook instead saying that he is one of only two running backs in the 31 rated players could work instead? The article doesn't really give much else to go on, so if that doesn't work out maybe the article is just not meant to be for DYK at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@97198: Given that the hook doesn't seem to appeal to non-Americans, do you have any hook ideas that could possibly have a more global appeal? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that we try to balance hook queues so as not to have too many US-oriented hooks in a single queue, and I also agree we should make hooks accessible to an international audience -- thus the wikilinks to "running back" and "college football". But this is the first I've heard of a formal or informal rule to outright reject hooks on grounds that they appeal primarily to a US audience. This is, after all, English Wikipedia, and the US is the most populous English speaking country with a population (333 million) roughly double that of all other English-speaking countries (less than 160 million combined). The E. J. Smith hook is not so important, but it would IMO be an astonishingly bad precedent to reject hooks because "Wikipedia is not USpedia". Balance the queues? Absoutely. Bar US-oriented hook? No. Cbl62 (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. I did not say that America-centric hooks are not allowed. I merely said that the hook would not have appealed to a broad audience, particularly those unfamiliar with American football. American football hooks that appeal to broad audiences are possible and indeed there have been many such hooks in the past (I've even approved some of them). My point is simply that the hook should not be given a pass simply because it's an American topic. America-related hooks still need to conform to the broad interest criterion and a hook about an American topic should still appeal to a reader regardless if they're from Alabama or from New Delhi. For what it's worth, I consulted with some editors over on Discord and even some of the American editors also had reservations about the hook. Indeed, some of them said they'd never even heard of Emmit Smith before. I think ALT1 is an improvement but it may still be too reliant on American football terminology. In any case, I'd like to hear from 97198 first before proceeding. I do have some reservations about ALT1 because I'm really not sure how much of a big deal the Pro Football Focus is, especially to non America football fans. On the other hand, perhaps focusing on the dad being a three-time Super Bowl winner may be better? At least the Super Bowl is somewhat well-known internationally unlike running backs. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Football Focus, often abbreviated PFF, is one of the most-cited analytics sources in the sport, and its list of breakout candidates receives extensive media attention. I'm surprised that many of the Americans you consulted aren't familiar with Emmitt Smith. The sport of American football has two principal offensive statistical measures -- passing yards and rushing yards. Tom Brady is the all-time leader in passing yards. Emmitt Smith is the all-time leader in rushing yards. Both are pretty big deals. Also, being the all-time rushing leader is a far bigger deal than appearing in three Super Bowls, the latter being something accomplished by dozens of players. Cbl62 (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To further address your concerns, I would also be fine with alt2 ... that E. J. Smith, son of the NFL's all-time leading rusher, has been named as one of the college football breakout candidates for 2022?
I just wanted to comment on what you said, "the US is the most populous English speaking country with a population (333 million) roughly double that of all other English-speaking countries (less than 160 million combined)" as that's possibly technically true, but absolutely misleading. Going only by "English speaking country" you discount English speakers in other countries (and what is an English speaking country? One where English is the official language? If that's the definition then the United States itself is not an English speaking country). According to List of countries by English-speaking population the number of English speakers in the United States is around 316 million (most, but not all Americans speak English), and all it takes is 3 countries (Nigeria, India, Pakistan) to have a combined larger English speaking population than America. The United States does have the largest number of English speakers by country, but American English speakers only account for about 21.76% of all English speakers, which is nowhere near the majority that your "double that of all other English-speaking countries" comment suggests. So yes, you're correct that this is the English Wikipedia, and following your same argument when taking into account that only around 1 in 5 English speakers are American, we need to take into consideration the fact that most English speakers are not American when writing hooks. That's not to say we can't have American hooks (I've written some) but we shouldn't assume that someone reading is going to be as familiar with American-specific terminology as an American would. - Aoidh (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And I've always agreed that we should have a variety of hooks in each queue. My "rant" was a reaction to the comments above which I perceived (perhaps incorrectly) as suggesting that hooks geared to an American audience should be rejected. And as for American-specific terminology, I agree with you -- which is why the proposed hooks links all American-specific terminology. Cbl62 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just wanted to make that point about the English speaking world not being an overly American one, that's all. I was going to say I have no specific comment about the hook, but when reading it I don't know what a "breakout candidate" is, and the article itself doesn't really explain that. Would we be able to explain that in the article, or maybe reword the hook so that it's more clear what that means? I don't even think that's an American-specific term but rather a football-specific one. I don't think anyone was suggesting that we shouldn't have American hooks or anything, just that the terminology used is perhaps a little too "inside baseball" in its wording? - Aoidh (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Breakout" simply means a person is breaking out: that is, they're on the rise in either stature or popularity. In sports, a "breakout" player means a player who is new but either has a bright future ahead of them or is already doing extra well. It's not an American football-specific term: breakout athletes can come from any sport or discipline. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess it's fair to say that "breakout candidate" is a sports-specific term rather than just football-specific, but it is a term that I'm unfamiliar with and I think perhaps a not insignificant portion of readers will also have no idea what it means. - Aoidh (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After giving this some thought, I'm wondering if it's possible for the hook instead to focus on Emmitt's Super Bowl wins rather than the rushes thing. I have some reservations if the rushing part would make much sense to those unfamiliar with American football, but the mention of the Super Bowl may raise some eyebrows. I do have some slight reservations about that angle though since it would put more attention on the dad than the son, but the way I see it, it's really the best remaining possibility left. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on the dad's three Super Bowls is not nearly as "hooky". The dad's status as the greatest rusher in the sport's history is far more extraordinary, particularly given that the son now plays the same position. As noted above, football has an air game (i.e. passing) in which Tom Brady holds the all-time record, and it has a ground game (i.e., rushing) in which Emmitt Smith holds the all-time record. The all-time rushing record is miles (even kilometers) more interesting. Cbl62 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asking SounderBruce for advice and he suggested a much simpler hook, one that doesn't really need any deep knowledge of American football.
ALT4 ... that Stanford's E. J. Smith plays the same position in American football as his father?
It focuses more on the "he played the same position as his dad" aspect rather than the running back aspect, so maybe it may be more understandable to an international audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think alt4 is not hooky in that it gives no indication that either E.J. or his father is anything out of the ordinary. Alt3 also doesn't mention the running back position but gives some indication of something out of the ordinary on the part of both father and son. Cbl62 (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Given that there doesn't seem to be any remaining options here, it doesn't seem like this nomination is going to work out. I understand the hook and I know what a "breakout star" is, but from asking from other editors (including Aoidh's comments above) it seems even "breakout star" may be too confusing to readers. ALT4 was probably the best option in my opinion as it's at least understandable, but it doesn't appear to be an option anymore.
The way I see it, the article may just not be ready for DYK at his time. Maybe if Smith's career flourishes and he does indeed break out, maybe something better can be said about him down the line. I was originally planning to mark this nomination for closure, but per the above comment I'd like to hear from those other editors first before proceeding. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further thought. The notion that we ought to be barred from using basic football terminology like "rushing" and "running back" is a new one. Those terms have been used in dozens of previous successful DYK hooks without similar challenges or reports of mass confusion. See "running back" and "rushing". Regardless, and to address the concerns, the football-specific terms have been stricken from alt3. Also, we've often used "breakout" without objection, e.g., Baby Yoda as a "breakout character", Bea Alonzo having a "breakout role", Pixie Davis likewise having a "breakout role", a song being a "breakout hit", and yet another song being a band's "breakout hit". This is relatively common phrasing, not odd sports jargon that would baffle large swaths of readers. Cbl62 (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just dropping by to give my two cents here; IMO the use of American football terminology in the hook is not a problem (and could become even less of a problem if the terms in question are linked). Just looking through some of my hooks that have run on the Main Page, the terms "losing record", "punting", "fourth down conversion", "tackles", "AFCA Good Works Team", "bowl eligibility", and "defensive coordinator" appear, in addition to another hook that makes mention of a defense holding their opponents' offense to a "season-low net total of 59 yards". I would argue that the majority of these terms are more obscure than "rushing" or "rushing yards". Of course, I have no idea how relatable "all-time rushing leader" would be to a reader who doesn't have any knowledge of the sport but I think that term would be easier to internalize than "fourth down conversion" or "bowl eligible". I had some pause about "breakout" but Cbl's links to the term being used in other context makes me think it would be alright to use it here. I like BeanieFan's hook quite a bit, though I would alter it only slightly to link the position in question:
ALT3b: ... that Stanford's E. J. Smith, son of the National Football League's all-time leading rusher, was named a 2022 breakout candidate at his father's position?
I think this hook gives appropriate context as to why both E. J. and Emmitt merit mentioning, apart from just familial relations (as in ALT4), and also uses the same terminology "all-time leading rusher" as is used (and linked) in the lead of Emmitt's article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alts 2, 3, 3a, and 3b would all be fine with me. I do think PNC02WPS has refined it best, though, with 3b. Out of the hundreds of hooks I've submitted in the past, I think this is now one of the best I've ever seen. (I predict > 10,000 hits.) Thanks for the good work, guys. Cbl62 (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think ALT3b is an okay compromise. It mentions him being a breakout while also mentioning the father-son relationship. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Approving only ALT3b, all other options are struck. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E._J._Smith_(American_football)&oldid=1196137896"