Talk:Pop Warner/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 19:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going to review this tomorrow. MWright96 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MWright. @Rybkovich: Cake (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Early years

"In 1878, the railroad arrived, and in 1882 the family moved to a house on East Main Street" - change to four years later Done

Iowa State

Remove the link to Iowa State since its already done in the previous sub-section. Done
"the team had a winning season but Warner was unable to match his triumph of 1896." - 1896 triumph Done

Carlisle

" Its late 19th and early 20th century football teams are now considered to be one of the most dominant and historically significant teams of the period." - considered by whom? Assuming it meant the NCAA, clarified Done
"Warner had to interact with young players different than the white," - take out the wikilink for white people since its a common term Done
"A track and field program was started the same year. Warner knew little of track;" - the sport Done

Brief return to Cornell

"The previous year's team had a poor season and Warner's 1904 team showed little improvement." - reptition of team Done

Return to Carlisle

"it is considered by many to be an evolutionary step in the game." - many people? clarified, given source Done
"he won gold medals in the pentathlon and decathlon at the 1912 Olympic Games in Stockholm, Sweden" - Sweden isn't needed in this sentence Done
"His salary was a then-staggering sum of $4,500 per season" - staggering appears to be POV Done
"Unfortunately in 1914 there was a big change in administration in Washington," - this may sound better In 1914, however, there was a major change in adminstration in Washington, Done
"Warner was once asked by a reporter of the Carlisle Herald to name an all-time Carlisle football team." - italize Carlisle Herald Done

Pittsburgh

"Warner coached his teams to 29 (33 if the Naval Reserves loss is not counted) straight wins and has been credited with winning three national championships (1915, 1916 and 1918)" - replace "wins" with victories to avoid reptition of a similar word Done
KDKA radio is a dab link Done
"Warner announced he was leaving Pitt to take the head coaching position at Stanford, but he honored his contract and remained at Pitt through 1923." - reptition of "Pitt" Done

Stanford

Backfield is a dab link for Offensive backfield ~~See reply~~ Done
"The new rivalry game against USC also resulted in a 13-to-13 tie." - this needs to have a citation Done
"Warner's former team that was now coached by his protege Jock Sutherland." - protege needs to have the double accute accent Done
"The 0-to-10 loss was Warner's first loss to USC's coach Howard Jones." - replace the first instance of "loss" to defeat Done

References

Refs 34 and 46 are dead Done

I'm putting this on hold until the nominator responds. MWright96 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for this MWright. This is mostly the work of the pinged user. He has a certain Russian tone which I try to balance with my insular American one. Those issues which I did not address I am either still struggling with, but hope to soon reply with having solved, or hope the other main writer will soon come in and save me. I've messaged him with others of my own, some similar. I am somewhat reluctant to change backfield's redirect. What then are redirects for? In Warner's day players were on offense and defense, in a so-called one-platoon system. The defensive backfield and offensive backfield used to both have the same players: the backfield. Granted you aren't asking me to change the text, but I felt it is worth bringing up. Cheers. Cake (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterCake: I'm not asking you to change the text, but I am merely asking for you to correct the wikilink, It should be like this: [Offensive backfield|backfield] like what has been done with the KDKA wikilink. MWright96 (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my anxiety there. The "evolutionary step" of Hauser's pass is all that remains a bit cloudy. Once rybkovich starts replying maybe I can get it cleared up. Cake (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterCake:@MWright96: I do not know enough about the technical aspects of the game, so I cannot participate in a detailed strategy development discussion. What other issues should I address to forward the GA process? Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've run out of improvements. Cake (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterCake: @Rybkovich: I'm impressed that you've both have made improvements that I haven't raised. I am therefore more than happy to pass this article and it will become GA class. Nice work. MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October Removal of Warner Photograph

@Jweiss11: @MisterCake: Hi Jweiss11, this is in regards to your removal of one of the Pop pics. In general I think unless there is an immediate negative issue with a big pic, we should wait until a discussion before removal of it. I think there are no issues at all with this pics presence. In regards to its positives - it is of a high quality, of his whole body, at work. It accompanies a large portion of text. Rybkovich (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for removing the image is that the article has plenty of picture of Warner with known specific places/years/teams. This one is just a generic picture of Warner. I didn't think it added that much to the article. Jweiss11 (talk)

Given I am unsure of that one's date despite Getty telling me, it's the one I'd have the least trouble removing; though I am also reluctant to see it go. Cake (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On images: If Getty's date is to be believed, Pop on one knee in the stripes is free use. If he is as old as his face looks, then it might should be fair use and in the infobox. It, Warner in Cornell uniform, and the one currently in the infobox are the three best shots of his face - all with that the square-headed severe look which will help one pick him out of team photographs. The '17 Pitt shot with Pop far away and with glasses used to be in the infobox. All of the fair use images are as follows: (1) Ernie Nevers and Pop, (2) Pop with balls and helmets, (3) Pop with the 1924 Stanford coaches and captain, and (4) old Pop with Temple players. (4) is just a great image for his time at Temple. (3) could be argued should just be on the '24 Stanford article, though one is hard-pressed to find a better shot of Pop with notable assistants. If only the '24 Stanford article were longer. (2) has the annoying getty watermark, but I could not resist that image. (1) is poor quality even for the 20s, and the article would be worse without images of Thorpe and Nevers. Also, if none of the above pass, then due to PD we get no images for Pop's storied career at Stanford. Cake (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the pic at issue is of him in the Cornell uniform? It's not a uniform, but the uniform is vertical red stripes? Per article he finished Cornel in 1905. Definitely looks older than 28 (born in 1927). So whether its cornell or not would not work in an argument that it is in in the public domain - pre 1923. What other school uniform can a sweater with vertical stripes fit?

Moving on, the wiki fair use policy exception will not work on all the post 1923 pics, as we already have multiple pre 1923 pic. The argument that a violation of copyright is justified by arguments that they represent him at different sections of his career will not fly. So unless the picture in question is pre 1923 I now agree with Jweiss11 that it should be removed. I think that all the other post 1923 pictures should also be removed. Rybkovich (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the one in the Cornell uniform I mean the one c. 1894, the first one in the body of the article. I wrote "It, Warner in Cornell uniform, and the one currently in the infobox;" it being the one in the stripes. Getty says it's even before 1905, say 1901, like his first time at Carlisle (where it's placed in the article). I agree he looks much older; I suspect the stripes were Stanford colors. The last four are also all "fair use', i.e. post 1923. As I echoed above, the one in the legacy section could go to the 1924 team article. Maybe could move him in 1932 to the 1932 article too, and find out what year it is at Temple. Would hate to lose Pop and Nevers for just a PD shot of Nevers, but that too could be done. That's the lot of the images with potential issues. Cake (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looked over the fair use policy and we can use several non PD pics in one article. I think solid arguments can be made to keep Nevers in the Stanford section - he is one of the greatest college and NFL players ever and the picture would be great to illustrate their connection at Stanfurd. A solid argument for the legacy pic as it is an illustration of the working relationship of Warner with his great descendants. Do not see the 1932 pic being in here and satisfying the WP:NFC non free content requirement that "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." a good argument can be made for it being at the 1932 Stanford page. A solid argument can be made for the temple team pic being at the Temple Owls football article. As he is one of the greatest ever and him being at Temple is a significant episode in the football team's history. I'll be happy to come up with the fair use qualification arguments.

PS @MisterCake: why are we talking/you replied in talk:Pop Warner/GA1 and not in talk:Pop Warner where I started the topic? Thanks for the clarification. Rybkovich (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good points on all fronts. As to how we got here (talk:Pop Warner/GA1), I am not sure myself - I can't seem to access this page from just Pop's talk page. I can see it there, but if I click on edit source in the appropriate section I am taken here - if I click on that for the whole talk page I see it in the article, but I don't get to edit it. Nothing below {{ Talk:Pop Warner/GA1 }} Cake (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that unless we are sure otherwise we should take out the "striped sweater" on copyright grounds, it can't be pre 1923 and we don't know enough about it to make a fair use argument. The Getty page does state that "Restrictions: No commercial uses without permission." I don't know what our policy is on such permissions, will look into it. http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515143544 Rybkovich (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re File:CoachWarner.jpg aka The Striper Sweater. If an image's only restriction is commercial use it is still not considered to be free content for our purposes see wp:f. Its a Commons file so I put it up for deletion there https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CoachWarner.jpg can't figure out how to interlink. Feeling bad about deleting it. Rybkovich (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Featured request

I am going to put in a featured request. The pics fair use issue is something that would need to be dealt with, or we just keep them all in and discuss it if they raise it. PS How long did it take for the GA request to be addressed? Rybkovich (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]