Talk:Minneapolis Miracle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 18:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Review

• I want to note that this article comes close to skirting, if not going over the NPOV, line. It seems to be written by Minnesota fans (not surprising as I couldn't imagine editing this if I were a Saints fan). Would encourage a general reading with this in mind to potentially tamp down words not supported by sources such as "constricted" and "middling"
  • I think the revisions have helped tremendously here. The one piece that feels missing at this point is any sort of coverage of the Saints since then. I'm guessing that Payton talked about it during mini or training camp for instance. Any deeper legacy from the Saints perspective at this point? The other piece that is missing and could help with both NPOV and broadness (and I think was in the sources) is a breakdown in a meaningful way of the Saints defense on that play. Otherwise I think where appropriate things are parallel and this has just about been addressed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Lead is definitely improved based on the comments below. It is, however, currently incomplete. Per MOS:LEADREL there are substantial segments of the article which isn't currently summarized.
  • This seems to be most of the way there. Origin of the term belongs somewhere as does something from either Legacy or Reception (or some summary of those sections. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. I'll add that! Best, Lamblings (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

• Works for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Similarly since it's a summary The play meant the game was the first NFL playoff game to end in a touchdown as time expired. also should be included somewhere in the body not just the lead.
• I'm guessing there is a better source to summarize the 2016 season - I'm not sure middling is a fair paraphrase from that source but certainly could be from something else.
• I did a search and don't think the SI article actually supports the fact that it is citing (don't see anything about 2nd NFC North title)
• Seems worth mentioning that the 2016 Saints season was even more middling/poor at 7-9
• 3 subsections for 8 sentences in Background is not ideal. I would suggest bulking up this section slightly to better serve the broad GA criteria while still avoiding issues with the focus criteria
  • The Saints background section remains in need of the extra context now given to the Vikings. These two sections should be roughly parallel.
    • Agreed. I'll add more soon. Lamblings (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lamblings
• The source in the game summary for the scoring plays doesn't say that Forbath used to be a Saints player.
• The Jeff Diamond source (20 as I write this) seem superfluous.

• Explanation of why it's called "Buffalo Right, Seven Heaven" is available in current sources and could be helpful context. Maybe as a note?
• The ESPN oral history doesn't support The offensive line and McKinnon, who was an extra blocker for this play, blocked the four Saints pass rushers. Other included sources do.
• There are a couple places in The Play section where there are multiple sources for a single fact which isn't really contentious (e.g. the Vikings didn't cover the spread). Might be worth only having the sources used elsewhere in the article.

• Does the information about the PAT belong in the Play or Aftermath section? (Belongs somewhere just asking where it seems best)

• The transcript of the Westwood One pbp needs a source. The AA anouncing source gives a shorter transcript.
• Same is true of the Saints radio call
• And the Paul Allen call
  • Whoops. I'll find those. Lamblings (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lamblings
    • It seems like this was removed rather than sourced. I feel like this article has some breadth issues already so would suggest putting back in and sourcing.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
      • My concern with the radio calls is that it means that a significant chunk of the article would just become block quotes, most of which are largely similar in content. I think we can improve breadth without relying on radio calls. Thoughts? Best, Lamblings (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

• I can't argue with your point that the radio calls are not the best kind of information. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Right now the page is called the Minneapolis Miracle with a redirect from Minnesota Miracle. My search indicates to me that it should be the other way around as Minnesota Miracle seems to have more support from the sources not withstanding what happened in the immediate aftermath of the play.
  • Huh. To be honest, most of my research (including the articles here) had Minneapolis rather than Minnesota. I think that – given the content of the radio call that will be played alongside the video clip in every montage from here to eternity – Minneapolis should stay as the page name. I don't know what the style guide calls for, though. Lamblings (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lamblings
    • This is the wrong forum for this but my research suggests the opposite. Both are named in the lead and it's properly redirected so it's all good and further discussion is beyond the scope of the GA so I'm marking as resolved. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Either way there is over coverage of how the term came to be as it exists in both the radio and aftermath sections. I think the aftermath section is right for this and the radio section coverage of it should be deleted.
  • Good idea. I'll get to that. Lamblings (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lamblings
• Is there a better source than the YouTube clip for Buck saying it was the most exciting moment he'd been a part of?
  • I'll check. Lamblings (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lamblings
    • Any luck here? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Nope. Should I keep or cut? Best, Lamblings (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

• Keep. He definitely said it and it's sourced so in the absence of an alternative it's with-in policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Concerns about broad coverage of the game remains.
  • I guess my question is whether broad coverage of the entire game is relevant, since the name of the page (and thus its implicit focus) is on the play itself. I read some of the examples you provided me, and there wasn't a clear-cut way of handling this issue. What sorts of content do you think I should add? Lamblings (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lamblings
    • This is a fair question - is the game notable or is the moment at the end of the game notable. Again going back to the sample articles it does feel like there's some more coverage of the game as a whole, which would be my read on the way for this to go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Fair point! I'll add more in. Best, Lamblings (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Lamblings
• The second link in External video is part of the much longer SI/MMQB story. I could not easily locate what media content it was showing. Suggest removal.
  • Sounds good. Lamblings (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lamblings
• It could be replaced by a link to the Awful Annoucing article (source 37 as of this writing) which contains all three calls.
• Are there any pictures besides that of the stadium that can be used? I would expect at minimum a picture of Keenam and/or Diggs could be incorporated if something from the actual play or immediate aftermath is not available.
  • I'm honestly not great at using photos on Wikipedia. Do you mind lending a hand, or is that outside the scope of a GA review? Lamblings (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Lamblings
    • Lamblings and Barkeep49: I added a few photos. Feel free to edit as needed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Gonzo_fan2007 they add a lot to the article as does the play design Lamblings. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

9/15 Review

I did a read through of the article tonight to see if it was ready to be passed. I don't think it's quite there yet, but the fact that I was reading with that mindset, given my thoughts at the beginning is a testament to your hard work Lamblings. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• I want to draw particular attention to the NPOV concerns - an easy place this is true is the difference in coverage the two teams receive in Background - roughly 7 sentences for the Vikings and 3 for the Saints. Regardless of the "is it about the game or about the play" point both equally involved both teams. But in general I think a read of the article with the "What would this feel like if I were neutral or a Saints fan" would be helpful as there are several such places the article seems clearly written by Vikings fans (for instance giving the Vikings defense agency for Brees interceptions "forcing" which the sources used do not while saying Keenum threw the interception later on) rather than in the neutral dispassionate voice of the encyclopedia.
  • I added more about the Saints' season in order to reduce NPOV concerns. If any remain, let me know!
• What do we know about the Saints defense on that play? While I do think it appropriate to give more coverage to the Vikings here, some context of what they were doing (were they in man, zone, where they trying to stop a touchdown or a field goal, etc) would be helpful for the reader in explaining why there is was no one there once there was the missed tackle.
  • I added a sourced sentence here from an interview with Payton describing the defense. Anything more would likely be speculative or original research.
• As I think I noted a while back I think this would be the first GA of its type - I don't think there's another GA for any individual NFL game or play. That means we don't have any good models for comparison to answer the question is the article about the game or the play. I feel that it's about the game - it seems like you (Lamblings) think it's about the play. This is more than a semantic difference since it gets into if/how it is broadly covering the topic. Can you give me some reason why you think it's about the play (if you do)?
  • I think it's about the play because, were it not for the play, the game would otherwise be undeserving of a Wikipedia page. The drama of the game in real time, while undeniable, has only been heightened in retrospect by the gravity of the final play. Why do you think it's more about the game?
    • Because I don't think you can separate the play from the game. If this same result happens in the Week 1 game there's no notability. The fact that it happened during a play-off game and was the ending of that game is inseparable. In general I am skeptical of the idea of any individual NFL play is notable where as it's clear that games are notable. Gonzo fan2007 what do you think? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I generally lean towards "the game is notable because of the events that occurred during it." Thus, the article is generally about the game, with a specific highlight on the parts of the game that made it notable (i.e. the play). A "play" being notable would be something like Packers sweep (a recent GA of mine). Hope that helps. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Okay! What changes would be needed, Barkeep49? Best, Lamblings (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

See my responses, Barkeep49! Best, Lamblings (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

10/6 Update

• I made a couple changes with the biggest coming to the LEAD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Think this largely addresses my broadness concerns. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• For the starting lineups I see that Minnesota Purple is used. Can Saints gold also be used? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes – just not sure how to do this.

• So it looks like you used the correct template (which I didn't know existed until now) so I would say you did this correctly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• I need to still give another read but am concerned that the NPOV from above has not yet been addressed. That in general this is written from a Viking's fan POV rather than a neutral POV. In particular I am concerned that equal agency isn't given to both teams for game events (as noted above). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, sounds good – I'll work on that! Best, Lamblings (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

Discussion

@Lamblings: Just confirming you are still interested in a GA review of this article.

Yes, I am! Lamblings (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

Great. I hope to do the initial review tomorrow. After that I'll be a bit slow as I will be traveling over the next week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I stopped by thinking of doing the review, but noticed it was already being reviewed. So, I * just leave my initial comment that per MOS:LEADCITE you probably don't need any of your citations in the lead. I don't view any of that content as being controversial. On a side note, as a Packers fan reading this article didn't make me feel good... =P « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I've done an initial read and will leave some more detailed comments as time permits. I'm a strong believer that many articles can pass GA through the collaborative process of the GA review and this is true for this article but it is farther (initially) than some and will require some work to pass. Just want to be honest upfront with that. Two starting poitnts: I agree with Gonzo about the LEADCITE being unnecessary. Would also encourage you to look at The Catch (American football) and Mile High Miracle in terms of structure - both of those seem to cover the "broad" criteria of GA better. This was truly a mind exploding play and I don't think any similar plays in football have been made GA so it would be neat if this was the first. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice! I'll fix the [[[MOS:LEADCITE]] as soon as I can, and I welcome all other advice :) Best, Lamblings (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

@Lamblings: I have completed my detailed read through and left comments through the Game summary section. Just want to make note of the issue remaining with broadness that I noted in this section. I hope to complete the review in the next couple of days - thanks for your patience as I've traveled.

@Barkeep49: Sounds good! I've made some more fixes already, and I patiently await your further suggestions. Lamblings (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

@Barkeep49: Hey Barkeep49, made a few fixes. For the life of me, I can't find any sources that state that McKinnon was blocking (even though it's obvious on video). I think the PAT paragraph belongs in the play discussion, since it seems an inseparable part of the spectacle. Finally, I'll try to add a note explaining the etymology of the play call some time in the next couple days. Otherwise, I continue to welcome your advice! Lamblings (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

@Lamblings: I've now finished going through the content of the article. I have struck review comments above that have been addressed. Feel free to add your own comments (preferably with a sig) beneath any specific review points above.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Lamblings Ive updated the review above to show the areas I still believe open. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Barkeep49 I've made my responses – let me know what you think! Thank you for your time. Best, Lamblings (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Lamblings
  • Lamblings Yes. Most of the "easy" stuff has been resolved. The article's definitely improved from the hard work you've done here, congrats on that. At this point the remaining criteria are NPOV (added a new thought about that under the very first comment) and broadness. Obviously adding in new content could necessitate some other (smaller) revisions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Barkeep49 I added more per your comments. Let me know if there's anything else! Best, Lamblings (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Lamblings
      • Lamblings and Barkeep49, nice work with this article. It has really improved since I first read it! Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your kind words, Gonzo_fan2007! I couldn't have done it without Barkeep49's patience and advice. Best, Lamblings (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

I did one final pass of the article and have now passed it. Congrats Lamblings on the work through this extended process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)