Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ben Crosby/archive3

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 via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2017 [1].

Ben Crosby edit

Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Questions?) 05:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's a charm? I really hope so.

After contributing just 35 edits since May (including an incredibly embarrassing single edit in all of November) due to a variety of off-wiki issues, which happened to be the primary reason why this failed the last FAC, I'm trying to get back into editing, and I figured that the best way to start out is to finally finish dealing with this article. I've recently gone back and fixed all of the outstanding concerns from last time, and although I've been wrong with this kind of a statement in the past, I think that this miniscule nine paragraph article is now free of all of my various flaws.

And just to give a very brief description: Ben Crosby was a late-19th century football player and coach, who basically accomplished nothing with his life before dying at 22 from Typhoid. He spent one year as a head coach of an important team and gained notability in his playing career for being worse than someone younger than him. I hope you like the article!

Thanks to everyone who reviews this. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 05:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I only had one issue last time, and I see you've edited to remove some of the repetition, but I think if you made it "Crosby died on December 29, 1892 at the age of 24" it would be clear that he died from typhoid. As it stands, since "succumbs" usually means "died", I think it's still repetitious. Alternatively you could edit the first mention of typhoid to remove the word "succumbs" and just say that it he contracted typhoid; I'm guessing you phrase it as you do because the source doesn't make it clear whether he contracted typhoid at that point, or the "severe cold" was typhoid all along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I understand what you mean now, and I've changed the paragraph accordingly. Thanks for coming back and reviewing again, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The above was the only remaining issue from my previous review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Mike. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As before, quotes should only be used minimally and only really for something memorable. Both of the following should be eminently fixable

"'contracted a "severe cold" - can be dequoted "URTI" or something, "fell very ill with a cold/URTI"

his illness intensified and he apparently "succumbed to an attack of typhoid fever". - "his illness intensified and he apparently fell gravely ill from typhoid fever." (or somesuch)

Otherwise looking on track for FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about taking so long to give you a response; I'll try to address your concerns later today. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that took longer than it should have. Sorry about that. I made a change based on your first point. On the second, I'd prefer to keep it how it is. Mike Christie noted it somewhat above; the sources are relatively ambiguous in their description of events, and I'm also not sure how medically accurate their wordings are. I think in this case using the quote is justified as it's the best way of expressing the information presented, without the possibility of misconstruing its meaning. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 12:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Wow, you corrected everything I saw on the BC#2 FAC, and did it in a very clear and concise manner. No other objections. I'm happy to support this. — Maile (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up and for the support. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – All of the references appear reliable and the links are working fine. The only issue I see with the formatting is that there is a mixture of 10- and 13-digit ISBN numbers; I believe the MoS favors the 13-digit ones. This is easy to fix; go here and type the 10-digit number in (click a button to hyphenate them), and it spits out the 13-digit number. Other than that admittedly minor concern, everything looks good in the sourcing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected this. Also, I went through and added OCLCs for all remaining sources that could have had them before. Thanks reviewing again, Giants2008. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 12:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I supported this article at the previous FAC and it looks to have improved since then, with the other commentary it's received. Having re-read it, I found no new issues to report. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Syek88 edit

This is a good short article: its brevity should not be confused for a lack of comprehensiveness. The following issues are all very much minor. I have little doubt that they can be addressed quickly and easily.

"which he was then commended for following the upset victory". This would read better with the preposition earlier and removal of the unnecessary "then": "for which he was commended following the upset victory". But perhaps the bigger issue with this sentence is this: he was commended for the win, not for the extra practices he scheduled. The sentence is ambiguous about this, and suggests that Crosby was specifically commended for his hard-ass coaching.

I've tried to reword this entire part of the lead. I think I clarified the issue, but it feels like I made the whole thing read a bit worse.

The article's lead section mentions a "cold", but the later and more detailed discussion of the circumstances of his death refers only to a "serious illness". The result is an internal inconsistency. I wonder if the reference to a cold is strictly accurate given the vagueness of such a diagnosis, especially in that era. It might be better to stick to the terminology of "illness".

Changed to "illness".

"As a child, Crosby attended Hopkins Grammar School in New Haven, Connecticut, the second person in his family to do so." The phrasing of this sentence immediately made be wonder who the other person in his family to attend the school was.

I've clarified this

"Crosby was very popular while at Yale". The word "very" looks to be vague and unnecessary inflation.

You're right. I've removed it.

"The team eventually finished the season with a perfect record and would be retroactively named national champions." Why was it retroactive? If nothing out-of-the-ordinary happened, weren't they just "named national champions".

At this point in college football, there was no system of awarding a program with a national championship. The idea didn't originate until the 1920s. All awards given to the team were awarded by organizations during the 20th century, and so they were awarded retroactively.

"Despite losing his spot, Crosby remained popular through his senior year at the university" I would not expect the loss of one's football team spot to result automatically in a decline in one's popularity. Accordingly, is "despite losing his spot" appropriate?

"Despite losing his spot" has been removed.

"first that had been independent of the program." - "who" would be better than "that".

Changed.

"Crosby also caught the attention of the press with his scheduling of constant practices leading up to the game". The word "constant" literally means 24 hours a day. Perhaps "more frequent" or something similar would be better.

Changed to your suggestion.

The final paragraph is very good. Syek88 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I've finally gotten around to trying to deal with all of your concerns. Thanks for the review, and sorry about taking so long. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 23:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Don't apologise at all. The changes look good to me, as does the explanation about the retroactively awarded championship. Syek88 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Have I missed an image review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, 2 of 3 are definitely in Public Domain due to age and publishing date. The third File:Ben Crosby 1891.png is clearly of an age to be public domain except that its publishing history is unclear. Worst-case scenario is a Fair Use rationale, which is valid, as there are no other photos of the person. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. I think we're in business...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A further note: While we are waiting for Syek88 to finish their review, a few things jump out from the article in terms of prose. For instance, we are using "Crosby" rather a lot, and some rewording to avoid this would be good. Also, in the lead, we have "A member of both Delta Kappa Epsilon and Skull and Bones, Crosby was a two-year starter on the football team and a backup on the crew team", which I'm afraid makes little sense to me and I suspect to a lot of readers. Before we promote this, I'd like one or two more eyes on the prose. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: Everything has gone a little quiet, but can I just check if Syek88 plans to revisit? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had been waiting for the article's author to respond to my (fairly minor) points. Even if there is no response, I am not opposing, if that assists. Syek88 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Texas Historian: If nothing happens soon, and the nominator is not responding, we might be forced to archive this I'm afraid. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've just been getting distracted. I've already dealt with most of Syek's points and I'll try to address the remaining ones soon. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 16:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Texas Historian: This has been open a long time now. If nothing has happened by the end of this week (4 March), I think this will need to be archived. Reviewers are stretched thin and it is not really fair to keep them hanging like this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, not sure if you noticed, but in fact the nominator has dealt with the remaining points a paragraph above, and the last reviewer has supported. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that. Ignore my last comment! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've recused as coordinator to copy-edit this a little. I've removed quite a bit of jargon and tried to make it more accessible for the general reader. Anything I have messed up can be reverted. I'm not supporting, as I think it may still be a little jargony, but have absolutely no objection to this being promoted now and may return to support in a day or two if this is still here. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I read through this last week and made a list of fairly minor comments but got sidetracked and didn't post them. Coming back to it today, I find almost all of the comments are resolved. I've tried a slight bit of prose tightening in a few areas, and have changed a few numbers so that per MOS:NUM it's consistent. It might need another look through for that. Otherwise, this is looking much improved. Don't hesitate to revert copyedits if the meaning has been changed. Nice article. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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