Jump to content

Talk:National Football League/GA2

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

Let me start off by saying how much I appreciate your taking on this core article--too many WikiProjects, and Wikipedians, neglect them IMHO. Here are some comments on the opening paragraphs only--I have to run now, but hope to continue this evening. Let me know your thoughts on these if you get a chance. Looking forward to working with you -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead needs slight expansion; ideally, it should touch on every section of the article, including the draft and corporate governance, even if these each only get a sentence. The various numbers of championships may be a little overdetailed for the lead (at least naming the 2nd and 3rd place teams in different categories), but I don't see that as a GA-level issue; I'm just saying that if you want to cut, cut there.
  • "The current champions are the Baltimore Ravens," -- normally WP:REALTIME would discourage a phrasing like "current", but it's hard to believe anyone will forget to update this after the Super Bowl. So I don't see it as a make-or-break issue for GA, but is there any way this can have a year instead -- "the 2012 champions"?
  • ""raise the standard of professional football in every way possible, to eliminate bidding for players between rival clubs and to secure cooperation in the formation of schedules" -- quotation should be followed by an inline citation at the end of the sentence (even if it means repeating a cite)
  • "On August 20, 1920, a meeting was held " -- can this very long paragraph be broken up into two or even three? Long paragraphs are an issue per WP:LAYOUT (criterion 1b)
  • " winning-loss record" seems odd to me. Would "win-loss record" be better here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I want to thank you for a speedy beginning to the review. I've taken all of these suggestions and applied them; I've modified the lede slightly to fit the first suggestion, so it may be a good idea to look over it again. Aside from that, I appreciate any and all notes of potential issues beyond the GA level; I do intend to bring this up to featured article status at some point (although I have at least one other article I want to get through first), so that sort of advice is certainly welcome. Anyway, I look forward to the rest of this review. Toa Nidhiki05 00:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Your fixes look good so far. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More I made it to the end of "draft"; this continues to look strong. Suggestions, some of them very optional, below. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Corporate structure" should probably be divided into 2-3 paragraphs.
  • "principal executive officer" ... "conduct detrimental to the welfare of the League or professional football" -- quotations should have a citation at the end of the sentence
  • Not a GA issue, but WP:ANDOR discourages use of "and/or"
  • "cancellation or forfeiture" -- quotation should have citation at the end of the sentence
  • I think generally titles like "Commissioner" are only capitalized when they precede a name. (e.g. [1]) In sentences like "the Commissioner can offer recommendations", it should probably be written lower-case
  • "games are run on Sundays" -- would "played" be a better word here than "run"? Football's not really my sport, btw, so I may just not be familiar with this one. Also, please feel free to revert any edits I make directly with which you disagree.
  • Both paragraphs in "Regular season" could potentially be split. I'm a fan of paragraphs of 3-6 sentences, but this one's up to you.
  • "per a rotating four-year cycle" may be redundant. How about "on a four-year rotation?"
  • "with the 3 seed" -- feel free to correct me on this, but I feel like this is normally either "the third seed" or "the No. 3 seed".
  • It's not an issue for GA, but you'll want to add more citations to the discussion of playoff seeding before an FA nomination.
  • "In the United States, the National Football League has television contracts" -- could be broken into 2-3 paragraphs
  • "the most recent Super Bowl" -- I feel like this is another borderline call for for WP:REALTIME. Again, this seems like it will be quickly revised after next year's Super Bowl, but technically that MOS guideline discourages this language. Your call.
    • I've reworded it slightly to mitigate that. It is worth noting it is the most recent, but I have done so in a way where it should be pretty obvious, without violating WP:REALTIME. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " while playoff teams are ranked the same way but are done so by the round of the playoffs they got to" -- this seems very awkward. How about "while playoff teams are ranked by the round of the playoffs they reached"? Or is there a rule nuance I'm missing?
    • Well, the rule is basically that teams are ranked by overall record, but tere are several groups teams are split into - teams that didn't make the playoffs, and teams that made the playoffs. All non-playoff teams are ranked higher than any playoff team, regardless of record. Similarly, playoff teams are grouped by the round they made it to - so all teams that failed to advance past the first round will be ranked higher than those that advanced to further rounds, and so on. I've tried to word it a bit better, so you should check that and see what you think. There is certainly room for improvement here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the "Draft" and "Free agency" sections should be next to each other in this article's outline, since both deal with player contract status--what do you think? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has the exclusive right to operate to host" -- "to operate" could probably be cut here, seems like excess verbiage
  • "The Cowboys are also the most valuable sports franchise in the United States and are tied with the New York Yankees for the third-most valuable sports team in the world" -- If the Cowboys and Yankees are equally valuable, shouldn't they be tied in both categories?
  • " All 32 NFL teams rank among the top 50 most valuable sports teams in the world" -- this isn't a GA action point--I just wanted to say as an aside that I was astonished by this statistic.
    • Yeah, that is a very big accomplishment, especially for a league that only operates a small number of games, has no international teams, and relatively little international visibility. I think it boils down to the NFL having a fairly decent amount of parity among teams and fan interest in the game of football as a whole. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jacksonville Jaguars - Best Team in the NFL" -- is this just POV vandalism? Or is that their nickname? Removing for now.
  • "Free agents in the National Football League ..." -- divided this into 2 paragraphs if that's okay with you.
  • USD is used inconsistently in the article--sometimes followed by the dollar symbol, sometimes not. I'm actually not 100% sure which is correct, but this should be fixed one way or the other.
    • I'm not sure what the format is either; I don't edit too much on articles relating to money, but I stuck the USD in there to distinguish from international dollars (like the Canadian and Australian dollar). I am not sure if USD is supposed to be used every time, or just once, but I have added the dollar sign to each usage. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]

Ok, this looks solid and ripe for promotion to me, despite the quibbly points above. Since this is an unusually high-profile article with a diffuse scope, however, I want to briefly check in with WikiProject NFL to see if we can get further comment. I'll also see if I can find how a few other reference works summarize the NFL for comparison just to make sure we're not overlooking a "main aspect". Thanks again for your work here! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me - this is a very important article, so it should be important all aspects are covered. I primarily utilized internet and magazine/newspaper articles in researching this, so any information from reference works would be much appreciated. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave this open for 5-7 days, then, to see if we can attract any further comment. But I feel this is essentially ready to pass.
Two minor points in the Encyclopedia Britannica article that seem worth including in ours: the first NFL president was Jim Thorpe, and only two of the original NFL teams remain franchises today. (There's also a list of the original NFL teams that might worth a mention.)[2]
Good points there. I would mention all the original teams, but that seems a bit excessive given only 2 still exists and there are still minor disputes among sources as to just how many teams played in the NFL in 1920. Toa Nidhiki05 18:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This source has some interesting discussion of Pete Rozelle's role in NFL's media dominance [3]. This, too, seems worth a sentence or two. The final paragraph about NFL criminal activity is interesting, but probably doesn't need a mention in the article yet.
Great source. I've added it, since that gives a good overview of post-1960s NFL expansion. If I can find some information of Paul Tagliabue's tenure as Commissioner, that would serve as a good end to the history section for now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This could act as a source for the end of NFL's segregation, which seems worth 1-3 sentences. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea on that front as well; I have added it to the article. Toa Nidhiki05 18:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast responses. Your additions look good, and I believe this covers the main aspects based on those comparisons. Given the scope of this topic, I'll leave this open until 6/27 to see if we can attract further comment. Ping me the day after if I forget to return and close this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See minor prose points above
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Some paragraphs might be divided per WP:LAYOUT.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Inline citations need to be added at the end of sentences containing quotations. For FA, more citations may be needed generally.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See above for a few suggestions on aspects that could be touched on. Also requested second opinion on this. Appears to cover main aspects based on comparison to other reference works. Requests for second opinion haven't turned up further details.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA

Outside comment

[edit]

I'm creating a space here for any outside comments (i.e., not me or the nominator). -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Football_League/GA2&oldid=1140125991"