Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob Chappuis/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [1].

Bob Chappuis edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger
previous FAC (00:24, 24 April 2008)

I feel that this is an interesting article of sufficient breadth and depth to qualify at FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. Good work overall, but there's a bit of work to be done.
  • Chappuis parachuted from the plane before it crashed and was rescued by Italian partisans who hid Chappuis and two other crew members for three months until the end of the war. - Needs a comma somewhere.
  • The Early years section is somewhat lacking. First off, when was he born? Who were his parents? Surely there's more information than a few sentences. Also, I don't think the College football in 1942 is needed.
  • At the time he was a Sergeant. - Stubby sentence.
  • Chappuis and his crewmates finally wound up in a home in the small town of Asola, Italy, in the Province of Mantua, Lombardy, about 40 miles (64 km) from Milan. - "Wound up in" → "reached".
  • They passed the time playing cards with each other and with the Ugolini family with whom they stayed, and reading a well-worn copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin. - Do we really need to know that the book was worn?
    • I think the implication is that all of them read the book often and it got worn out from this type of use. It is not a statement of coincidence about a book that was old upon their arrival, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite any difficulties in re-adjusting to civilian life and football, Chappuis had a tremendous football season in 1946. - "Tremendous" is a bit POV.
  • Though reports differ as to Chappuis' total yards gained, University of Michigan records show that Chappuis gained 1,284 yards in 1946 – 734 yards passing, 501 yards rushing and 49 yards receiving. - Change the en dash to an em dash.
  • He completed 48 out of 84 passes for 976 yards, including 11 touchdown passes. - Link touchdown.
  • This stood as a school single-game total offense record for over twenty years. - Numbers above 10 are written in digits.
  • An interesting sidelight of the Rose Bowl was the Rose Bowl Queen nomination of Ann Gestie, the future Ms. Bob Chappuis, which was against the tradition of having a queen from Pasadena, California. - "Interesting" is POV.
  • The pros included Paul Christman and Charlie Trippi. - Is "pros" is formal word?
  • Unfortunately, the college All-star game caused Chappuis to miss three weeks of practice and he played little in the early season games because he had not learned his plays. - "Unfortunately" is POV.
  • Unfortunately for Chappuis, the Dodgers finished the season with a 2–12 record and folded after the 1948 season. - Again. Also, this sentence needs a source.
  • Chappuis is also the uncle of former Michigan and Baltimore Colts strong safety Rick Volk. - Remove "also". This needs a source too. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Image review

  • Two infoboxes? Please decide - this looks ridiculous.
    • It is fairly common and non-controversial for an athlete who is notable for a second reason to have multiple infoboxes. I know of no policy that this goes against. Military service box sections have been incorporated into politician infoboxes (see Jon Corzine and Jack Kemp) to lessen the confusion, but nothing has yet been done for athlete military combinations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but in the Corzine and Kemp examples, there is only one box. In the Chappuis article, there are two separate infoboxes and one of them has that ugly "click here if you have a free image" space in it. It is a terrible layout and, apparently, completely unnecessary. Why don't you just combine the boxes? Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point was that athlete infoboxes have not been streamlined to incorporate double infoboxes in a unified single infobox. As far as the click here goes, we need help finding a military picture of this guy so that placeholder image seems appropriate. If this does not pass here, I will post it at WP:MILHIST A-Class review where the military guys might know how to find a military image for the guy. Is there a way to combine the military info in the main box? The MILHIST guys might be able to help us in this regard as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Robert Chappuis.JPG - I didn't see the CC-by-SA 3.0 license at the source website - can you show me where it is?
    • I am in conversation with Karen Jania at the Head of Access and Reference Services at Bentley Historical Library about twenty images including this one (sparked by Garland Rivers' image). I hope to have this resolved soon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This morning, regarding my query about 20 images used on WP from the Bentley Library, I was officially forwarded to another administrator who is the Director of Licensing for the University of Michigan. I will keep you updated. I only have about 50 rollover minutes left on my phone until Thursday. I will probably call on Wednesday, but won't be hounding her if she does not contact me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have spoken with the Director of Licensing about the statement that "This collection is open to the public." and the WP licensing requests for either GDFL or CC. There is concern about use of images to give the appearance of endorsements by University Athletes. Is there a way that a consent could be worded to alleviate this concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would suggest taking this to OTRS. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • What page do you go to to do that? I am confessing to being confused about WP:OTRS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You simply have your contact email the Wikimedia foundation. Start here. (Next time, it might be a good idea to sort out these image release issues before FAC, as they can take some time.) Awadewit (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more information at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The email address is: permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:Chappuis.jpg - I'm on the fence about this non-free image. No real effort went into constructing a fair use rationale for this specific article. For example, the generic statement "The image is needed to identify the person for educational purposes in an encyclopedia entry and significantly improves the quality of the article" does not really explain why we need this image and I'm not sure what having the cover really adds to the text. The text says he was on the cover of Time. Must we have that cover as well? If so, please explain why. It is certainly not to "identify the person". There is already a picture of him.

I'm sure we can resolve these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This was my argument in the prior FAC: By its inclusion in the article the picture adds a lot of information. Very few college football players ever make the cover of Time. When you read the lead and then scroll down for a quick look this picture jumps out at you. It is not unusual for an important politician, world leader, or corporate titan, but this image is sort of shocking and adds to the article for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fair use rationale doesn't say anything about "very few college football players make the cover of Time". Can we find a number somewhere? If we could say "only 1 of 5" or something, I think that would be a good argument. However, we should remove the part of the fair use rationale that says "identify the person" - the purpose of the image, as articulated by your rationale, is not to do that. Awadewit (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said that 398 covers were of athletes. To demonstrate rareness, we need to say 398 of how many total covers. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. The fair use rational says that his appearance is an example of a "rare" phenomenon. We need to show that: there are only 398 Time covers that feature athletes out of [X] number of total Time covers. Awadewit (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - If memory serves me right, the last FAC was one of the last sports candidates that I didn't review. It's like taking a trip back in time, only this time I have a clue of how to review articles. Nice to see you back to work on sports pages; it at least gives you a break from Chicago buildings. First batch of comments is below.

  • Pair of All-American links in the lead. Usually I suggest that the second one be removed, but I think the first one is a better candidate in this case. An unpiped American football link could remain. Also two Michigan Wolverines links. The one in the third paragraph is for a different article, but I fail to see how it adds any value.
    • I simply unpiped the American football. Is there a problem with the adjacent links. I have never had an unbolded instance where a second occurance of a link was preferred before. Thus, I think linking the first is proper.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The adjacent links aren't what bother me. I just think that it's awkward to have "All-American American football player" in the first sentence. If anything, I'd suggest removing All-American to avoid this. It already says later that he was named to the team. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Service in World War II: "Chappuis was rescued by an Italian partisan, Aldo Comucci. Comucci..." Don't like the last two words being the same. I actually think the sentences could be combined; they flow logically and the sentence wouldn't be too long.
  • "He threatened to turn the American in..." Everything surrounding this is Americans, so why is this singular? Was Chappuis the only one who was going to be turned in?
  • 1946 season: Em dash code shows up in the text halfway through the second paragraph.
  • 1947 season: He breaks the single game total offense record twice in three sentences, alternating between 20 years and "over twenty years".
  • Same paragraph: Does Wikipedia have an article on the concept of two-way players? If so, a link to it would be a good addition to the end of this paragraph. Always a good idea to provide links to jargon words.
  • Look magazine has a link, which can be inserted into the next paragraph. And put it in italics as a printed publication.

Busy in real life at the moment, so I must stop here. I'll be back to read the rest on another day. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a while, but I'm finally back to continue the review.
  • 1948 Rose Bowl and All-Star Game: Comma after 1947 Chicago Cardinals?
  • "In the 15th game College All-star vs. NFL champion match" Don't understand this. Should game be removed?
  • Celebrity: "In addition, his time at Michigan defined an era in a way that became a permanent reference." Maybe so, but how did he define it? The latest addition to the criteria is that subjects should be placed in context. I'm not sure yet how this criterion works, but this seems to be a perfect example of where more context is needed. It would add some flavor to the article, and beef up a short section.
  • Professional football: "However, Chappuis passed up the Steelers offer" Steelers could have an apostrophe.
  • Two All-American Football Conference links. I'd remove the second, and define the AAFC abbreviation (place the initials in parentheses after first use).
  • Watch the capitalization of the college all-star game. Some inconsistencies there.
  • "Although, Chappuis led the team in total offense..." Remove the comma after Although. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 18 November 2008 (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/Bob_Chappuis/archive2&oldid=1088824138"