Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early history of American football/archive1

< 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2016 [1].

Early history of American football edit

Nominator(s): ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the early history of the sport of American football (before 1933). This article was created as part of a split of History of American football, which is itself a featured article already. Since the split this article has been significantly improved upon and meets all the criteria for FA nomination.. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural oppose - Per the instructions, you are only allowed to have one individual nomination open at a time. Please select one, and withdraw the other. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's a well-researched article, and certainly good for Wikipedia, but I feel there are too many issues that I am opposing at this time.

  • "Among these important changes were the introduction of the line of scrimmage, of down-and-distance rules and of the legalization of interference." - this would be the first instance of the oxford comma, but I notice later you don't use it (as when you mention early coaches). Makes sure you're consistent with comma usage before the last item in a series.
  • The first three paragraphs of the lead use "century" as a basemark, but the 4th paragraph uses specific years. I'm not sure if this was delineate, but is there a reason you don't use "1700s" instead of "18th century"?
  • Much of the first few paragraphs of the "History of American football before 1869" section is unsourced, such as Dane's Head and the various countries' games
  • "There is also one reference to ball games being played in southern Britain prior to the Norman Conquest." - this seems like an odd way to start a paragraph. The previous paragraph mentioned Cornish hurling, and isn't Cornwall in southern Britain? The aforementioned section of the national games could also use a double check - it seems grammatically dubious.
  • "In the ninth century Nennius's Historia Britonum tells that a group of boys were playing at ball" - "at ball" seems weird (unless it's a quote", and the beginning, I can't tell what's the subject of the sentence. I think there should be a comma after "century" to make it clearer
  • "A second medieval image in the British Museum, London clearly shows a group of men with a large ball on the ground." - this might be pedantic, but why "clearly"? That sounds like POV language. Ditto the next sentence, and the last sentence of that paragraph is troublesome that it says "likely"
  • "The first detailed description of what was almost certainly football in England was given by William FitzStephen in about 1174–1183." - given the quote, I don't think you can say "almost certainly" without any bias.
  • "King Edward II was so troubled by the unruliness of football in London that, on 13 April 1314, he issued a proclamation banning it" - this is the first instance of a date in the article. Make sure all dates are consistent.
  • "In 1531, Sir Thomas Elyot wrote that..." - source?
  • "These antiquated games went into sharp decline in the 19th century when the Highway Act 1835 was passed banning the playing of football on public highways." - this is a huge jump from 1531.
  • In all, it seems like the prehistory section of football has a bit too much info, given that this article is about American football. I think it should be cut town, ideally with a few quotes removed.
  • "Although there are mentions of Native Americans playing games" - given how much time is spent on ball playing on Europe, this could be fleshed out a bit. Were there ball games there?
  • "Princeton won that game by a score of 8 - 0." - but you just said before that it only went to six goals. If the 6 wasn't a permanent part of the rules, then it's not needed and confusing.
  • "Later in 1870" - you used the exact date for the previous one, why not this one?
  • "This game's violence caused such an outcry that no games at all were played in 1871. " - you mention a lot of the violence in specifics earlier, but here the violence caused a moratorium, so details would be good.
  • "Football came back in 1872, when Columbia played Yale for the first time. " - related to the above. Was it a formal ban, or just no games were played?
  • "The only way to score was still to bat or kick the ball " - as far as I can tell (and let me know if I'm wrong) this is the first mention of batting
  • Given that Harvard v McGill has an article, the details for that section can be a bit shorter. I'd focus more on the second paragraph, which says - "This series of games represents an important milestone in the development of the modern game of American football." And then explain why.
  • "Following the introduction of rugby-syle rules to American football, Camp became a fixture at the Massasoit House conventions where rules were debated and changed. " - how did this student have that much say? And more of the "why"s behind the rule changes would be appreciated.
  • "Later changes made it possible to snap the ball with the hand" when?
  • "At the 1882 rules meeting, Camp proposed that a team be required to advance the ball a minimum of five yards within three downs." - did it pass?
  • "When Walter Camp witnessed this tactic being employed against during a game he refereed between Harvard and Princeton in 1879, he was at first appalled, but the next year had adopted the blocking tactics for his own team at Yale." - aside from being unsourced, this sentence is quite a run-on! Try splitting up. Also, when did Camp become a ref?
  • "Alex Moffat was the early sport's greatest kicker and held a place in Princeton athletic history similar to Camp at Yale." - this sounds like something from a book, not an unbiased Wikipedia article.
  • The whole Arthur Cumnock section feels unnecessary, that it could be summarized in a sentence or two.
  • In the expansion section, you talk about the first time football was played in Kentucky and Tennessee. Why those two states, and not others?
  • "Yale football starts the same year and has its first match against Columbia, the nearest college to play football." - what year, and why present tense?

This is all up to the expansion section, so I will stop my review for now. I certainly learned a lot reading the article, and it is good work, but I don't feel it's ready for FAC. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you very much for your feedback and I am glad that you learned alot. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2016 (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/Early_history_of_American_football/archive1&oldid=699867417"