Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carolina Panthers/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Carolina Panthers

[edit]

Carolina Panthers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked a great deal on this article and think it is ready to go up against the featured article criteria. The Carolina Panthers are one of the more recent teams in the NFL, but have established themselves as the main sports team in Charlotte and the Carolinas. The height of the team's success was perhaps the 2003 season, when the team made it to the Super Bowl, but the team has made the playoffs three other times. They are currently in rebuilding mode, and have not made the playoffs since 2008. Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • All win–loss records should have en dashes in them per the Manual of Style. I see a few without them in the lead, and there are probably others elsewhere.
  • Team history: "The Panthers began play in 1995, their first season." Don't need anything after the comma; if they began play that year, then it must have been their first season.
  • Redundancy here: "The Panthers defense was the second-best defense...".
  • Don't need two Super Bowl links here.
  • Logo and uniforms: The period before ref 7 should be removed. When combined with the exclamation point, there's currently double punctuation there.
  • Stadium and practice facilities: The spaced em dash here goes against the MoS, it should either be unspaced or turned into a spaced en dash.
  • In a couple of cases here, the last word of "Bank of America stadium" should be capitalized.
  • The all caps in ref 17 should be removed.
  • The red link in ref 68 can be fixed by taking out the first word of The Tampa Bay Times. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of these issues should be corrected now. Toa Nidhiki05 02:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ownership and administration: More en dashes needed for records here.
    • "led the team from 2002 to 2010 and coaches the team to three playoff appearances." "coaches" → "coached".
    • Reference 33 needs a publisher (Carolina Panthers).
    • The publisher of ref 29 should be italicized as a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All issues are fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 00:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support – I've been keeping an eye on how this FAC has progressed, since I found relatively few issues during my review and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a bunch of things. At this point, I'm confident that the article meets the FA criteria, and the only thing missing is a source spot-check. Once that is done, please consider this a full support. Nice job on a topic that is inherently difficult to get to FA status. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The team hired New York Giants defensive coordinator John Fox to replace Capers - "Seifert" here?
The team's ownership is controlled by Jerry Richardson and the Richardson family, who own 48% of the team; the remainder of the team is owned by a group of 14 limited partners. - ungainly sentence. What about "Jerry Richardson and the Richardson family own 48% of the team; the remainder is held by a group of 14 limited partners."
The Panthers began play in 1995. - sounds really odd to my ears - unless this is an American term, I'd say "first competed" or something.
Look for examples where a word is repeated in the one sentence and try to rephrase - there are a couple of others.

I need to read through this again. Looking promising but prose could do with some smoothing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - have a look at what I am doing like this and double check if I have accidentally changed the meaning. I will look a bit more but juggling words so you can get away with less repetition and make the prose tighter and more interesting to read is what is needed now. Not being hugely familiar with NFL I am not too confident on comprehensiveness but cannot see any glaring content deficits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
Looks fine to me, except that I changed the term 'home ground' back to 'stadium'. It's a bit confusing, but in American football what might be called a 'home ground' in other sports is called a 'stadium'; since this article is in American English, American terminology should probably be used (similar to how if I were editing an article on, say, Australian rules football, I would have to use Australian terminology like 'home ground' and the like). Other than that it looks great. :) Toa Nidhiki05 01:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are alot of Panthers in para 3 of Team history - try to come up with ways of reducing them without losing meaning. better
sans Delhomme - hmmm, possibly a little too casual for FA - might want to reword....
''the new logo was designed to modernize their old logo -ummm, can't modernise the old logo as it's been superceded..? Reword - modernise the brand?
I'd link anthropomorphic
(Not surprisingly) there are alotta "Rivalries" in the Rivalries section - see if you can rephrase to reduce...this might be tricky....


Comments from Resolute
Resolved issues
*In the second paragraph of the lead, the transition from on-field performance to ownership is rather jarring. The ownership and coaching stuff might be better in the first paragraph, and would transition nicely from the Forbes estimated value of the franchise.
  • Related to Cas Liber's point on redundancy above, the third paragraph could open with "The team is headquartered and plays out of Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte."
  • "The team managed only a 7–9 finish in 1997 and slipped to 4–12 in 1998, leading to the firing of Capers as the team's head coach." - you could eliminate the redundant use of "the team" by ending the sentence with "...leading to Capers' dismissal as head coach."
  • "The Panthers hired former San Francisco 49ers coach George Seifert to replace Capers, and he led the team to an 8–8 record in 1999, his first season." - "his first season" is unnecessary, since the rest of the sentence makes it clear that this was his first year as head coach.
  • I'm not sure how relevant this is, so will leave it to you to decide, but the Panthers' 1-15 season would have tied an NFL record for losses at the time. Do you believe that is worth noting? (The Lions, of course subsequently broke that record).
  • The paragraph that begins with the hiring of John Fox has an inordinate number of sentences that begin with "The Panthers..." or "(Although) The team..." Could some variation be added here? One suggestion: "Following a 1–7 start, the Panthers rebounded to win six of their last seven games."
  • "In 2010, after releasing Delhomme pre-season, the Panthers recorded the worst record in the league that season (2–14) and had the worst offense in the NFL during the season." - strike "during the season", it's unnecessary.
  • "The team is allowed to use the blue jersey two times in any given season, as NFL regulations prevent teams from using alternate jerseys in more than two games." - Seems redundant and unnecessarily long. Perhaps: "The team is allowed to use the blue jersey two times in any given season, as per NFL regulations."
  • "In their first year of play, the Panthers played at Memorial Stadium in Clemson, South Carolina, as the Panthers stadium in uptown Charlotte was still under construction." - Strike the second use of "the Panthers". Replace with something like "...as their stadium in uptown Charlotte..."
  • "Ericsson Stadium, now called Bank of America Stadium, opened in summer 1996" - I would suggest moving the wikilink: "Ericsson Stadium, now called Bank of America Stadium, opened in summer 1996." Also, my MOS on this point is hazy, but would "in the summer of 1996" be preferable?
  • "The stadium was privately financed by the Panthers,[5] with the Panthers paying $248 million for the stadium construction and Charlotte paying $60 million for..." - Consider rewording: "The stadium was primarily financed by the Panthers;[5] they paid $248 million for the stadium construction and the city of Charlotte paid $60 million for..."
  • "The money will go to build escalators to help fans reach the stadium's upper deck, to buy new video boards for the stadium, and to improve the stadium's sound system." - so much stadium! How about "The money will go to build escalators to help fans reach the stadium's upper deck, to buy new video boards and to improve the sound system."?
  • It continues with the next two sentences. Perhaps "...one of the few teams in the NFL to own their stadium" could change to "...one of the few teams in the NFL to own their own facility", just to add some variety.
  • You don't need to state twice that Scott Jagow's comments about the Panthers' culture came in 2004.
  • Four mentions of "South Carolina" in one sentence is a lot much. You could remove one by noting that Haley declared "Carolina Panthers Day" in her state.
  • You note twice that Panthers Talk is broadcast on the team's radio network.
  • You note that the team's flagship TV station is WCCB, then mention Fox's WJZY, then refer to "the network". I am lost as to whether "the network" refers to Fox, or the Panthers' TV network. I think the former, but am not sure. Also, channel numbers for each station will be meaningless to most readers. But if you decide to keep them, you've left an open bracket for the WCNC-TV link.
  • "The Panthers rivalry with Tampa Bay is perhaps the most heated rivalry in the NFC South." - reads as opinion. I'd like to see a citation or two immediately after this sentence.
  • The single transition of McCormack to Mark Richardson as team president invokes the year 1997 three times. Too much redundancy. You also mention that Richardson resigned three times in three consecutive sentences.

There's a fair bit of prose concern given how many words or phrases are used redundantly. I have mentioned most that I have seen above, but there may be more. Still needs a little smoothing. I will let you go over these comments, then if I have time (and inclination), might take a second pass of my own. Thanks, Resolute 00:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, those are resolved. I still want to take a second pass and take a quick look at sources, etc. before I give a final view. Prolly in a day or two. Resolute 22:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. :) Toa Nidhiki05 23:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through again and doing a copyedit myself. Please make sure I didn't alter any intended meanings, particularly in the Television section. Further comments:

  • I don't really like the "wine and cheese" bit in the lead. It's a colloquialism and the lead does not properly explain why the number of transplants is important. It also joins two statements that are kept separate in the Culture section.
  • What made the 2003 SB the "Greatest Super Bowl of all time"?
  • I am unclear on the point of note A. How does the existence of a 53-man active roster relate to 14 players suffering season-ending injuries?
  • Spot check of about 15 references revealed no concerns.
  • On Refs 19 and 20 - "Page 2" is the name of the column, not of the article you are citing. Please add their article titles
  • Ref 38 uses "Charlotte Observer.com" as its work, but other references for this paper use "The Charlotte Observer".
  • Ref 52, USA Today should be italicized
  • Are Refs 71 and 76 affiliated with the Charlotte Observer? It looks like a columnist's personal blog.
  • Images require alt text.

That's it for my second pass. Resolute 23:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed all of your issues; I've fixed one minor error that was made in the 'Television' section. Toa Nidhiki05 00:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK, see comments below (fair-use, own work, PD-textlogo, PD-US Air force). Sources and authors provided.

  • File:NFCS-Uniform-CAR.PNG - note: this file is under review for WP:NFCC at [[2]] and may or may not be deleted as result. As it shows no copyrighted logo and has a legitimate FUR for identification, it should be OK here. Either way, i don't think this nomination needs to wait for the result, it is handled in a separate review.
  • Various Panthers textlogos - OK within the more lenient US threshold of originality.
  • File:Carolina_Panthers_logo.svg - fair-use for old logo is OK. Can't be described as text and is an important detail of the team's history.
  • Please fix the FUR in the image summary, it states, that this logo is "currently in use" by the team.
Thanks for the image check; I have made the fix you request on the old logo. Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- While consensus is leaning towards promotion, reviews and support have still been a bit light on given the nom has been open six weeks. I'm prepared to leave open a bit longer but it really does need some more eyes on it to get the nod... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have any advice on getting more comments? I've already posted to the relevant WikiProjects as soon as this was opened.

Comments Support – I conducted this article's GA review, and Toa has asked me to contribute to this review. I'll add any points as I read though the article.

  • I wonder whether the lead could be improved by a simple rearrangement. I'd be surprised many people would care that the name in Panthers Football, LLC. I would recomment moving this second and third sentence until after the history section. This is a minor point, but I believe it'd improve the article.
  • I would recommend using {{Win-loss record}} for the win-loss records. For someone unfamiliar with North American sport (or even sport in general), saying a team finished "7–9 in 1995" is a bit meaningless. Not sure if the convention is to use the template in the first instance, or throughout the article. I'd prefer throughout, but if there is a convention for it's use -- go with that.
  • "The Panthers are supported throughout the Carolinas. Although the crowd at home games has been described as having a "wine and cheese" atmosphere and fans of other teams often outnumber Panthers supporters at games, this has been attributed to the city's relatively recent entry into the NFL, the popularity of basketball in the region, and the large number of Charlotte residents that were originally from other cities with NFL teams." -- this doesn't really read very well
  • Regarding the pre-season games they played between 1989 and 1991, who played? I'm a little confused about this.
  • I see you used {{Win-loss record}} in the history section, why not in the lead?
  • " the best from a first-year expansion team in league history" - why not " the best ever from a first-year expansion team"
  • " in their second season, finishing with a 12–4 regular season record in 1996 and won the NFC West division." second season, and then 1996 seems redundant
  • I wonder if there is the same perspective on the 2003 SuperBowl ten years on? Is Peter King's view of the match still widely held?
  • Maybe wikilink shutout - it's American English that non-Americans may not be familiar with
  • " held in Seattle, by the Seattle Seahawks" close reepition of Seattle, maybe "hosted by the Seattle Seahawks" ?

Will add more comments shortly. – Shudde talk 09:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • "which they determined would be "process blue" (a shade lighter than Duke's and darker than North Carolina's), was the most difficult to determine" - close repetition of "determined"
    • Changed.
  • "and the changes that have been made are mostly minor ones," maybe "and any changes have minor," ?
  • "Team owner Jerry Richardson" - should this not just be "Richardson " ?
  • "The Panthers can use whatever color pants they wish in any game, as the NFL does not require teams to use particular pant colors.[35]" I'm not really sure what the point of this sentence is
    • First off, I have now moved this to be right after the bit about alternate uniforms; the main reason is to note that the team can choose which pants they want to wear, but typically only wear one of three combinations. Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nike had presented this idea to the Panthers organization, who approved it; the team appreciated this idea, as they wanted newer fans to gain a greater understanding of the legacy Mills, who died of cancer of 2005, left behind." - English
    • Modified a bit. Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still have problems with this. You say the idea was approved, but this is obvious from the previous statement. It's also very verbose. Maybe "Nike had conceived the idea, and the team supported the concept as a way to expose newer fans to the legacy of Mills, who died of cancer of 2005." ??
  • "Mills had introduced the phrase, which has since become a team slogan, in a speech to the team prior to their 2003 playoff game against Dallas;" - close repetition of "team" maybe use "side" instead
  • "It offers public tours for ten people or less on Wednesdays and Fridays as well as group tours for 11–100 people from Monday to Friday, charging a fee for either type.[43]" -- I'm not sure how encyclopaedic this is; it's also the kind of information that could go out of date very quickly.
  • Would be really good if there was an independent source regarding the size of the bronze statues
  • "The team does not own this facility.[52] The team has hosted training camp at Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina" -- close repetition of team
  • "In 2004, NPR reporter Scott Jagow observed that the Panthers' Super Bowl appearance represented the arrival of Charlotte onto the national scene, despite the crowd's "wine and cheese" reputation" -- I wonder if this would work better in the history section? Just a suggestion, feel free to ignore.
  • "The rivalry has resulted in a number of severe injuries for players on both teams, some of which have been the result of foul play by players on either team." - close repetition of "resulted", maybe "some of which have been caused by foul play." ?
  • You may want to double check multiple wiki-links.
  • There looks to be some sort of error with ref 63.

I haven't checked sources or images. Article looks in pretty good shape. – Shudde talk 11:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for commenting. I've fixed all concerns except with the wiki-links, and will do that in a bit. Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, happy now! Sources still need a spot-check, but am much happier with prose now. There is a duplicate link script somewhere that will help you find duplicate links within the article (there are still a few there); I can't remember where you can get the script though. You may want to ask at WT:FAC. Have changed to support. - Shudde talk 01:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The dup link checker is here. BTW, you also have a dab link: WCMC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Maralia - I don't have the time to give this a full review, but I made a few minor fixes. The image captions still need some attention: captions should not end with a full stop unless the caption is a complete sentence. Maralia (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missed those somehow, now fixed. Thanks for spotting them. GermanJoe (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AmericanLemming

Resolved comments from AmericanLemming

I just took a glance at the lead, and this one sentence stuck out at me: "The team is worth approximately USD $1 billion according to Forbes and is controlled by Jerry Richardson and the Richardson family own 48% of the team". As it stands right now, I think it's a run-on sentence and is rather confusing. The article later clarifies this point by saying "Jerry Richardson is the owner and founder of the Carolina Panthers. Richardson and his family own about 48% of the team." I would suggest doing one of the following:

  • Changing it to "is controlled by Jerry Richardson, and the Richardson family owns 48% of the team" or
  • Changing it to "is controlled by Jerry Richardson and his family; they own 48% of the team. The remainder of the team is held..." AmericanLemming (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw this too, having a glance at the lead. Shouldn't be in an FA candidate under review this long; looks like another run-through for prose is needed (incidentally, I'm not sure the first alternate wording of AmericanLemming works much better, the second looks okay). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, Toa Nidhiki05, I'll be around all night if you have any questions on my comments. It's currently 6:16 PM where I'm at, so that 7:16 PM your time. I'll strike out my comments as you address them. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from AmericanLemming

I saw that you needed more reviewers/comments, so I decided to pitch in. Having proofread the entire article, I will now offer my feedback. I have a few disclaimers, though:

  • 1. I'm a newbie editor, and this is the first time I've reviewed a FAN, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
  • 2. I may be an American, but I really don't know that much about football.
  • 3. Some of the issues I bring up may have already been brought up by other reviewers and addressed. If so, just let me know.
  • 4. Some of my prose comments may have less to do with grammar and more to do with my stylistic preferences.
  • 5. I have tried to be picky (and I know that FA reviewers are supposed to be picky), but I think it is entirely possible that in a few cases I am a little too picky. I don't know which those are, though.

AmericanLemming (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria: I have mainly focused on 1a (prose) and 1b (comprehensiveness), since I don't feel well acquainted enough with the other criteria to offer feedback. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments
  • "Charlotte, North Carolina, who play in the" Putting a period after after North Carolina and changing "who" to "they" would make the first sentence flow better, I think.AmericanLemming (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "USD $1 billion according to Forbes" Maybe set off "according to Forbes" with commas?
  • "The team is worth approximately USD $1 billion according to Forbes and is controlled by Jerry Richardson and the Richardson family own 48% of the team". How about ""is controlled by Jerry Richardson and his family; they own 48% of the team. The remainder of the team is held..."
  • "limited partners" hyperlink. The average reader isn't going to know what a limited partner is. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since then the team has failed to record a winning season" failed to have a winning season? AmericanLemming (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "headquartered and plays out of Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte" headquartered in?
  • "plays out of" This wording seems a little awkward to me; "in" or "at" might be better.
  • A possible rewording for the above two comments: "The team plays in Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, which also serves as their headquarters."
  • "The Panthers are one of the few teams in the NFL to own their stadium" Eh. This seems somewhat redundant to me. If it's their stadium, why mention the fact that they own it? I think "to own the stadium they play in" would be clearer. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during their first season and" during their first season, and AmericanLemming (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wine and cheese" I think another reviewer has already brought this up, but I think the average reader is going to find this phase, if not confusing, then certainly distracting. Maybe cut it out altogether?
  • "residents that were" Are we assuming that most or all of these residents are currently dead? As a side note, I think "who" sounds better here, though you may disagree with me.
  • "with some games having fans of other teams" with some games having fans of the opposing/visiting team.
  • "The team maintains rivalries with all of their fellow NFC South teams" There's only three other NFC South teams, so "with all three of their fellow..." would be clearer. Otherwise, the reader gets the impression that there's a lot of teams in the NFC South, which there's not. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "successfully earned" successfully earned the right to have/the right to operate?
  • "to highlight demand" to highlight the demand? I think adding "the" makes it sound better.
  • "1995 NFL season," Maybe get rid of the comma? It seems to add an awkward break to the sentence.
  • "8-9 record" 7-9 record. There's only 16 games in the regular season. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the best ever from" the best ever for? If you're going to use "from," maybe go with "the best performance every from a first-year expansion team"?
  • "eventual champion Green Bay Packers" eventual champions, the Green Bay Packers? If other NFL teams are referred to as plural throughout the rest of the article, shouldn't you be consistent?
  • "However, the team finished 7–9 in 2000" Underline the win-loss record.
  • "time." This should be "time," since you have "and" after a lengthy sequence of inline citations.
  • I must apologize again for not giving you enough context. I suggest changing what you changed back. The sentence I had in mind was "The game is still viewed as one of the best Super Bowls of all time. and NPR reporter Scott Jagow" AmericanLemming (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2008, the Panthers recorded a 12–4 regular season record" had a 12-4 season record? ended with a 12-4 season record?
    • That would not be quite accurate; a season record might imply the addition of playoff wins and losses into the total. Using the term 'regular season' makes it explicitly clear that the record did not include the playoff loss. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for being unclear. My suggested rewordings should read "had a 12-4 regular season record" or "ended with a 12-4 regular season record". My focus is on the verb "recorded", which doesn't seem to be the best word to use here. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after releasing Delhomme pre-season" Do you mean "after releasing Delhomme during the pre-season" or "after releasing Delhomme before the season" or "after releasing Delhomme during the offseason"? I don't know much about football, but I do know "pre-season" and "before the season" are not necessarily the same thing.
  • "recorded the worst record" had the worst record? ended with the worst record?
  • "but lost key players" but lost key players Julius Peppers, a defensive end, and DeShaun Foster, a running back, who were both injured during the game.
  • "The Panthers were defeated" How about "The Panthers were then defeated..."? It makes the connection that the injuries likely had something to do with the loss.
  • "but finished the season" deleted "the season" to avoid redundancy
  • "season-ending injury and his backup" add a comma after injury
  • "setting the NFL record for rushing touchdowns from a quarterback (14)" add "most" before "rushing touchdowns" And I assume you mean in a single season?
  • "any changes that were made" any changes that have been made
  • "NFL regulations allow the team to use the blue jersey up to two times in any given season" Any reason why?
    • I do not believe there is any specific reason given - it is just policy. To me, it is meant to prevent teams with a large number of throwback jerseys from using them in every game (which would obviously mess with efforts to market jerseys in the main colors), but I don't have anything to confirm that. Toa Nidhiki05 01:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only been two exceptions to this standard" only two exceptions to these combinations/only two exceptions to this tradition?
  • "in comparison to" compared with/to?
  • "reconciled his fight against cancer with" I think "compared" is a better word here; "reconciled" implies to me that these two were in conflict with each other at some point in the past.
  • "headquarters and administrative office for the Panthers" of the Panthers
  • "making them one of the few teams in the NFL to own their facility" making them one of the few teams in the NFL to own the facility they play in.
  • "Panthers home games" the Panthers' home games?
  • "It annually hosts two college football games" It hosts two college football games annually?
  • " instead, due to" Again, a comma that seems to create an awkward break.
  • "concerns of stormy weather" concerns over stormy weather?
  • "aired live on the Panthers radio network" Panthers' radio network
  • "because a comment" because of a comment
  • "commentator, Mike Morgan" remove the comma
  • "fellow NFC South members" who are they? There's three of them if I'm not mistaken...
  • "The Panthers rivalry" Panthers' rivalry
  • "The rivalry originated in 2003, starting" originated in 2003 and started
  • " and escalating further following" Add a period, then put "It escalated further following"
  • "both of whom the Panthers have played frequently" play frequently?
  • "Gentleman Linebacker" What on earth is a "gentleman linebacker"? Most linebackers are not very gentle, as far as I know.
  • "14 partners" 14 limited partners. If anything, have the "limited" in both the lead and the body, or in the body but not in the lead.
  • "Richardson paid $206 million for the team in 1993" To start the team? To get the right to start the team? Clarify, please.
  • "from 1994 to his retirement in 1997" from 1994 until his retirement in 1997
  • "1995 to 1998, and" another awkward break caused by a comma
  • "served in that role until he stepped down from that role in 2009" delete "from that role." It's redundant.
  • "the athletic director at" the athletic director of?
  • "including the playoffs" including playoff games
  • "Since beginning play" Awkward. Please reword.
  • "NFC South championships" NFC South championship. They can only win it once per year.

That's all my prose comments. I apologize both for their number (57, I think) and their pickiness. As you address them and/or explain why change is unnecessary, I will strike them out. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, on the whole, the article meets the comprehensiveness requirement. However, there are a few exceptions. The last paragraph of the "Stadium and facilities section" focuses almost entirely on a running joke regarding the Panthers' current practice facility. I think it adds some character and context to the article, but the first sentence is "During the 1995 season, the team practiced at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, South Carolina." Then there is a sharp transition to talking about the current practice facility. Some explanation of how the Panthers got from their first practice facility to their current one is in order, and that is currently lacking from the article. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, at the very beginning of the "team history" section, I think it would be worth mentioning that Jerry Richardson is originally from North Carolina. It appears that he was born in Spring Hope but grew up in Fayetteville, so I'm not sure which one you should mention. AmericanLemming (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the fact that the Panthers were originally in the NFC West and then moved to the NFC South is mentioned, but there is no explanation of when/how/why that happened. Also, why were the Panthers originally placed in NFC West? Geographically, that doesn't make a lot of sense.
    • I've added an explanation on the move and the placing in the NFC West; basically, the NFL division alignments were not really that accurate (due to, among other things, relocation of teams and the need to maintain divisions of roughly equal size) until re-alignment in 2002. The NFC West was actually the best spot for the Panthers because there were two other southeastern teams (New Orleans and Atlanta) in it. Toa Nidhiki05 04:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you possibly add some information on how the Panthers obtained/bought/constructed the three practice facilities that they currently use? AmericanLemming (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's nothing really special - it is on the same land as the stadium, and the Panthers consider it to be a part of the stadium, basically.[3]

Alright. 62 comments later, I think the article needs two more things before it's ready for FA status. One, it needs someone to give it another close proofread. I'll do that myself, and you needn't worry about that, because if I find anything to change, I'll change it myself. Two, it needs a table in the "Team history" section that summarizes the Panthers' win-loss record, as the prose can be somewhat confusing to read at present. I made such a table myself (the lack of one was really bugging me), so I will add that to the article. However, you may want to modify it/look it over to make sure all the information is correct. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you disagree with any of my copy-edit changes, feel free to change them back. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished proofreading the lead and the infobox; i'll get the rest tomorrow. Or later today, I guess, seeing as it's already tomorrow. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1991, the group formally filed an application for the open expansion bid" What is an "open expansion bid", and is there such a thing as a closed expansion bid? AmericanLemming (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on October 23, 1993, the 28 NFL owners unanimously awarded the Carolinas the 29th NFL franchise" Technically, wasn't the franchise awarded to Richardson Sports? Was Richardson Sports ever renamed "Panthers Football", or is it like a holding company that owns 48% of the company? AmericanLemming (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm using the terminology for the source, but I changed it. As to the name of the organization, I don't really know - I believe the ownership group and organization are different (ie. the team would remain Panthers Football even if another owner bought it). Toa Nidhiki05 01:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the team's defense was the second-best in the NFL in terms of yards conceded, they were hindered by an offense that ranked as the second-worst in the league in terms of yards gained" Do you think it would be helpful to explain that "second-best in the NFL in terms of yards conceded" means that they gave up very few yards and that "second-worst in the league in terms of yards gained" means that they gained very few yards? AmericanLemming (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be appropriate to add some speculation/predictions on how well the Panthers are going to do this season? AmericanLemming (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In choosing the team name, the Richardsons did not run focus groups with potential fans. Their intention had always been the 'Panthers'" Why did they choose the name the 'Panthers'? Also, when did they decide on the name? AmericanLemming (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if there was a reason aside from them liking the name, no. I'm also not sure exactly when they decided on it - they didn't announce it in the early phases of bidding, for example. Toa Nidhiki05 01:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you think you could change the color of the three tables I added to match the other ones? I think it would add to the visual appeal of the article. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Pat Yasinskas of ESPN.com observed that while there is "a bit of a wine-and-cheese atmosphere at Panthers games" Out of curiosity, what exactly is a "wine-and-cheese atmosphere"? I think you should add a little note right after the quote that will allow readers to figure out what a "wine-and-cheese atmosphere" from context. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Wine and cheese' refers to the large number of upscale clients that attend games; Charlotte is a major banking hub nowadays, so there are a whole lot of bankers and businesses that attend games for business meetings and the like, and they don't tend to be very loud or aggressive fans. Thus, the term 'wine and cheese atmosphere' refers to the behavior these fans (who are quite numerous) exhibit in the game - a passive, non-aggressive attitude that often isn't too focused on the game itself. I would note or paraphrase this in the article, but it is hard to sum it up in a couple words. Toa Nidhiki05 01:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update Alright. I've finished my second proofread of the article. I made the easy changes as I went along and made note of some things I thought needed changing but didn't know how to change. You can see those below under the "Remaining comments" section. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining comments (1a and 1b combined)

Here's a few things I found during my second proofread that I didn't know how to fix. Sorry for giving you more work to do, but I think changing these things will improve the article further.

Support. I strongly support promotion of this article on the basis of its prose and comprehensiveness. Having read the article from head to tail twice, made 88 edits to it myself, and made 78 comments for Toa Nidhiki05 to address (which he has addressed or otherwise explained why the change does not need to be made), I believe that this article's prose and comprehensiveness meet the FA standards. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments forthcoming - Just wanted to leave a quick note, since this is the oldest open FA, to say that I am writing up some comments for this FAC. The article is in good shape and most if not all of my comments will be about minor fixes/improvements. However, since this would (I think?) be our first NFL team FA, I want to give the structure/format a bit more thought, and compare it to that of other team FAs, as this article's format would inevitably be emulated by future NFL FAs. Maralia (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting ready to do this - to respond to the structure bits, this would indeed be the first NFL team FA. In writing this, I mostly based the format off of the Kansas City Chiefs article - one of two other NFL team articles to be 'good articles'. I didn't look too much to other team FAs, but I am sure there are good things that can be added here. Toa Nidhiki05 16:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia

[edit]
Detailed comments; active items summarized below
Thanks for being patient!
  • "Following a 1–7 start, the Panthers rebounded to win six of their last seven games; they missed the playoffs, however, after losing their last game of the regular season to New Orleans. Had they won, the Panthers would have made the playoffs." - a bit redundant; drop one mention of the playoffs or the other, yes?
  • Suggest you link the word bye (sports).
  • "The team's uniform has not changed very often since their creation, and any changes that have been made have been minor, such as changing the sock color of the team's black uniforms from blue to black and changing the team's shoes from white to black." - Stilted. Perhaps something like "The team's uniform has remained largely the same since its inception, with only minor changes such as..."
  • "In February 2013, the city of Charlotte tentatively agreed on a $250 million improvement package for the stadium, half of which would have been paid by Charlotte and the other half of which would have been paid by the State of North Carolina and the Panthers." - Wordy. How about "In February 2013, the city of Charlotte tentatively agreed to a $250 million improvement package for the stadium, with half to be paid by the city and the other half to be split by the State of North Carolina and the Panthers."
  • "The two people in the Panthers Hall of Honor, team executive Mike McCormack and linebacker Sam Mills, are both honored with life-sized bronze statues outside the stadium." - 'both' is extraneous here.
  • The Rosinski mention is really convoluted and needs some work; I don't have a solution yet, but listing it here so I don't forget.
  • Is the format for the 'List of radio/television affiliates' tables a standardized one? The location of the hide/show link is not intuitive; one expects it to be on the top right.
  • I read the entire article without learning that Sam Mills' #51 has been retired. I see now that it's in a footnote inside a table; surely this is worthy of a prose mention, along with a citation?
    • Good note - I have added that after the note of Hall of Honor members. Toa Nidhiki05 15:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the addition. It brought up another question for me: his Hall of Honor table mention says Sam Mills, position: linebacker, coach, tenure: 1995–1997, inducted: September 27, 1998. Obviously he wasn't linebacker and coach in those 3 years, which makes me wonder if 'coach' is relevant there, since he was inducted before he started coaching. So I went to the cited source, and found that the Panthers' Hall of Honor listing for Mills refers exclusively to his tenure as a player; no mention whatsoever of his coaching. Since they don't mention it, and it's obviously anachronistic, I don't think we should mention coaching in the context of Hall of Honor either. Maralia (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good catch - it appears they inducted him before he began coaching, but retroactively include his coaching career. Since he was inducted as a player, I have changed it to just have 'linebacker'. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that quite a bit of the information in tables and templates is not explicitly cited (Record by season, all-time record, hall of honor, head coaches staff). Obviously these values will change over time, but it's important that we can verify that they are correct now.
  • A few things I expected to see but didn't: attendance, fight song, charity/benefit work. There is a lot of information on their official site about scholarships, the Keep Pounding charity, etc.
  • The Pro Bowlers table is enormous. Good for the Panthers, bad for me: it's 3 pages worth of scrolling. Have you thought about making it default collapsed?
  • There are quite a few relevant images on Commons; you should probably add {{Commons category|Carolina Panthers}} (maybe next to Notes?) to link to them.
  • This is not a big deal, but could improve page load time: you only have to wikilink publishers once (i.e. you don't have to link ESPN, NFL.com, etc every time).
I still have a little more thinking to do about structure, but I wanted to get these bits of commentary to you now. I'll try to finish up soon. Maralia (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A recap to sum up what remains from my comments above:
  • I still need to take a stab at rewriting the Rosinski bit.
  • In attacking the awkward-to-phrase Rosinski mention, I had some ideas for better flow within the Radio and television section. I've rewritten it, and in so doing, I failed to find any reasonable way in which to introduce the Rosinski situation. I was left feeling that it didn't belong in the article, and indeed it isn't even mentioned in Bill Rosinski. I retained the text but commented it out. I also commented out the Fox NFL sentence because it wasn't in the cited source and we have not mentioned any network or local channels explicitly, aside from the flagship (and WCNC because it carries an exclusive, Panthers Gameday). Let me know what you think of my rewrite and the two omissions. Maralia (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it; moving the text there is a good idea. I would have no qualms with the Rosinski text being removed, but it was included because another reviewer felt it would be somewhat important to know why Rosinski was fired. Toa Nidhiki05 01:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to hearing why Rosinski himself should be mentioned (I'm not a Panthers fan, maybe I am missing some legacy), but he was only mentioned in the context of his firing, which struck me as particularly odd considering the article doesn't mention other arguably-as-relevant controversy (the player who was murdered by his wife, the player who went to jail for having his girlfriend shot, etc). Seems gratuitous if the person himself doesn't have significant coverage in the article. Maralia (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason the Rosinski mention is in the article is I figured it might be nice to mention who the play-by-play guy was before Mixon took over; once again, I'm fine with removing the controversy bit. Toa Nidhiki05 23:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue of the tv/radio tables: I hate to say this (knowing how much work you must have put into creating these tables) but after some thought, I feel that the affiliate info really is extraneous. The prose portion of your section, about the flagship stations etc, is certainly relevant, but I think including affiliates is awfully close to electronic program guide territory. I couldn't find any explicit policy guidance on this, although WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE is tangentially relevant. I don't recall this issue coming up at FAC before, but for what it's worth, I haven't been able to find any sports FA that contains a listing of radio/tv affiliates. Let me know what you think about this.
  • The staff table (template) needs a citation.
  • The roster template takes a date parameter and outputs it as 'updated on xx'. Since the staff template is really just a simple table, I added similar 'updated xx' text, formatted that part to look like it does in the roster template, and added a commented-out note that will hopefully tell any updaters how to handle it. A kludgy fix, but looks more or less right. Maralia (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will take a look at the code used for the other tables, to see if I can address the hide/show placement issue.
and two new items, from a review of structure as promised previously:
  • The tables for Hall of Honor and for Pro Football Hall of Fame enshrinees are very short and unlikely to change drastically over time; is there a real benefit to offering this information in tables rather than in prose?
  • Ditto for the Head Coaches of the Carolina Panthers table; this one is already fully described in prose, and I don't think the table provides any added benefit.
Once we get these issues resolved, I will be ready to support. Thanks again for being so receptive. A lot of folks would've been resistant to yet another detailed review when their FAC was approaching promotion, but you've been unfailingly patient and responsive to my suggestions. It's been a pleasure. Maralia (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Glad you came over to help out. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I deliberately left this open longer than planned for the comments from Maralia, whose reviews are always valuable (as are those of everyone who commented earlier) but I think it's appropriate to close this now and ask that any minor points still outstanding be actioned outside FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a note for posterity's sake, because I see that I didn't explicitly say so: I have performed spot checks on this article. Maralia (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Carolina_Panthers/archive1&oldid=1166570292"