Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New England Patriots/archive2

New England Patriots

Nomination (self). For a few days, I have worked to try and bring this article to FA status. The previous nomination served as a peer review, of sorts. Another peer review was started, but most of the feedback from my friends and fellow editors was corrected beforehand. 25 citations have been inserted, the detailed history has been moved to its own page, one or two pictures have been added (with brief captions), and so on. I feel that it's ready. As for stability: the only major edits during the past four-five days have been by me, except for the occasional wording or link fix. Furthermore, the article has featured only one vandal over the past several days. Moreover, the fact that there is a subarticle for history will divert cruft. Deckiller 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support (nomination). Deckiller 21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Best american football team article in Wikipedia, cruft free, needs a slight copyedit in a few lines but still good. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: User:Wayward was kind enough to copyedit the article. Deckiller 17:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Although I'm not the biggest Patriots fan in the universe (Go Falcons!) the layout of this page is outstanding, and its main editors seem dedicated to keeping it in the best condition possible, I think it deserves recognition. AdmiralTreyDavid 02:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:CoachMacsyr.JPG has no source or copyright information. Such images may be deleted at any time.
  2. The image Image:Patskick1.jpg is tagged as "fair use". It's quite possible for a Wikipedian to make a replacement image, so there's no reason to use a fair-use image here.

  --Carnildo 22:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I removed the first image Image:CoachMacsyr.JPG out of the article. I'm not so sure about the second one. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I replaced the coach image with Belichick's image, since it is a book cover. I'm not so sure what to do with the second image. Deckiller 23:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Using a book cover to illustrate something that's part of the cover image is not allowed under either Wikipedia's fair use policy or fair use law. --Carnildo 04:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Deckiller 05:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I decided to just remove the patskick image and replace it with a more stable image from a previous version. Deckiller 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I've helped Deckiller with this article a bit and I must say, this deserves to be a featured article. Gflores ^Talk 18:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I wish Green Bay Packers was this good. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Deckiller and the other editors have done a great job, this looks very well done. Griz 22:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support! - Nice job on the page...deserves to be featured IMO. Great to see that American sports can get well-written pages as well.  :) -- transaspie 05:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, if this gets featured status quickly enough, can we put it on the main page for Super Bowl Sunday?) - transaspie

I think that would only make sense if the Pats had made it this year, and if they had it would probably be seen as POV on Wikipedia's part (The only way it wouldn't be in that situation would be if they were in, won and you had it as the main page article the next day). Daniel Case 16:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support It was I who brought the initial nomination forward a few months back and did some initioal cleanup work on it, but I'm glad someone else has taken some real responsability ;). Anyway. Maybe a better indication should be incléuded that the history page is where week-to-week updates can and should be included. This'll help keep up the pages' standards.Thethinredline 09:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support; seems rather short but what else is there to write? One thing—is the Doug Flutie dropkick that important in franchise history? Seems to fragment the paragraph somewhat, but I'll admit it is pretty cool. Maybe restructuring that sentence and the ones around it would help. But anyway, nice work, and go Steelers! =) --Spangineer (háblame) 21:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I moved the dropkick mention up a couple of sentences so that it fits with the rest of the in-season info. Thanks for pointing that out! Deckiller 21:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object. This article leaves out virtually every significant off-field/business-related event concerning the team, but does manage to discuss logos and uniforms. It's high-grade fancruft. A sports franchise is also a business, and the business aspects need to be discussed in the article for it to meet the comprehensiveness standard. Monicasdude 23:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see how that qualifies as fancruft, though I do respect your point about explaining the business aspects. I'll create a section tonight. However, I felt that detailed ownership information would be better suited for the History of the New England Patriots page. Do you suggest a seperate section to cover business aspects or covering the information within the current prose? Deckiller 23:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think a few more details on business aspects would be a good way to balance items out, but details should be moved to the history subarticle per Deckiller and others. Griz 00:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Off-field/Business information to add: Here is a list of items that I plan on adding to the article to add balance:

*Paragraph on shifts in ownership during the late 1980s (Sullivan investments/change in hands, GM leaving)

* 1-2 sentences on the Sexual harrassment case in early 90s.

I've added a few sentances on the Lisa Olson scandal, but it's far more than 2, maybe it needs a bit of trimming. Thethinredline 14:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Attendence flows (perhaps a sentence marking the sell-out streak and the period of half-empty stadiums)
• Another sentence or two on Gillette Stadium.
• Some more minor details in Kraft's ownserhip change.
• Identify the saint louis owner outside of the logo and uniform section (st. louis shift rumors)
• One or two significant injuries (and off-field impacts)

These all look like good things to add to the article. My suggestion would be to integrate them into the text rather than adding a separate section. I also think the early history needs a bit of expansion, particularly an explanation as to why the team played in four stadiums over 10 years before getting its own (e.g, did fan base/attendance grow substantially, etc.) Monicasdude 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

-=Nods=- okay, many thanks for the criticism! I'll get to work on those additions, although it probably won't be until after 24 is over. Deckiller 01:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm busy tonight, but I will definitely have those tasks done as soon as possible. Sorry for the delay. Deckiller 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've informed Monicasdude that Deckiller and to a lesser extent myself have attempted to rectify the objections, and as all current objections have been dealt with (although not sure yet whether or not to the satisfaction of the dissidents) so I think we're pending at the moment... Thethinredline 21:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think, although significantly improved, the article still needs a bit more work, particularly in these areas (list order signifies nothing):

• Explanation of why team moved through so many stadiums (stadia?) in the 1960s
• Copyedit/spellcheck ("rejuvination"; "ablow 60%"; "Schiefer Stadium"; and so on)
• I think the presentation of the business/ownership history is oversimplified at best; I'd suggest checking out references like this one [1] which present a substantially different (and more interesting) account of events. (And this one [2] too, which has other interesting points.
• There's a reference to the "AFC" in reference to the 9/9/60 game that I don't understand, and isn't explained.

I probably could have been a bit more specific on this point in my first comment; the article still includes very little information on player personnel actions (cuts/signings, drafts, trades, etc), which I think of as off-field/business matters. Other than the Plunkett draft and the Bledsoe trade, I didn't notice any others mentioned, I expect the team made other significant personnel moves over 40 years (unlike, say, the Mets ;-)).A year-by-year report certainly isn't called for, but something in the area would seem appropriate. Monicasdude 00:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you say that something in the area of 4-5 other key draft picks and trades would be balanced? Also, I like those references; thanks for pointing them out. Deckiller 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My off-the-cuff estimate is that NFL teams make really major personnel moves about twice a decade, on the average, so I'd say in that area, but a little higher. Also, as I think on this, didn't they get a pile of draft choices when they let Parcell go to the Jets? (If so, worth mentioning as well) Monicasdude 01:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a big period where players were swapped. Okay, I'll get to work on that later tonight. Deckiller 01:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object. List of comments/concerns:
  • Wikilink full dates like "On September 9, 1960..." so my date preferences appear.
  • Explain the purpose of this sentence "Although the team made only two AFL playoff appearances, it had numerous stars." in that second "Franchise history" paragraph. Was it originally a transition sentence to a separate paragraph? It does not make much sense in the middle of that paragraph.
  • Clarify the last sentence of that same paragraph. It reads like Jim Nance won the MVP in 1967, but the reference says 1966.
  • "Player highlights during the early 1970s include Heisman Trophy[5] winner Jim Plunkett[6]..." probably best to add a verb in there so that the sentence can be more specific. The reference says he was drafted in 1971, but doesn't mention anything about his playing abilities, so perhaps add "drafted".
  • "Chuck Fairbanks was fired as head coach in 1973." After reading the rest of that paragraph, this intro statement doesn't seem right.
  • These two sentences, one right after another (albeit in two separate paragraphs) seems redundent: "Berry would ultimately coach the Patriots to their first Super Bowl appearance in 1985. In 1985 the Patriots obtained a wild card slot under new head coach Raymond Berry."
  • "Local product Doug Flutie..." perhaps there is a better term than 'product'.
  • Can an explanation or reference be found for "and controversy within the organization, namely, the Sullivan ownership."
  • The two consectutive " NFL's Longest Winning Streaks" references, when referring to the same streak is probably overkill.
  • Please provide a link in the reference:"Patriots History. Logo naming information. Accessed 26 January 2006.":
  • "The team also started to wear blue pants with their white jerseys.[23]" This statement is not supported by the reference.
  • If all the links in the "References" are in the "Notes", then they can be merged into "References and notes" or simply "References".
  • Also, I agree with the above reviewer's comments about needing off-field/business-related info. --maclean25 19:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

maclean25's objection have been dealt, with, as have the majority of Monicasdude's. To both dissidents ( ;) ) have you been satisfied, or are there still points that need adressing? Thethinredline 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should probably make those changes first, just to make sure everything is to their liking. Deckiller 22:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmkay... I have a good half hour now, i'll see if i can adress some more of Monicasdude's objections. But Maclean's objection have seen solved, except for the business side argument, which is covered by the others. I'm not a PAts fan, do you know anything about the potential St. Louis move? Thethinredline 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; I'm looking for decent sources to talk about that for a bit. Do you want to take the early years and I'll take the later years? Deckiller 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just padded the referrence to Gillette Stadium a bit more and added two nice link, but i have to call it a day. Should be able to eke out a bit more tomorrow. Good luck. Hopefully we'll be able to adress all major remaining concerns by this time tomoz.Thethinredline 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done a paragraph on the attendance (although I could only find date from the 1980s onwards) so i'd say we've dealt with most complainst and improved the article. Thethinredline 09:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I crossed off some of the accomplished fixes. However, could you clarify what you mean by wikilinking dates? Should they be "January 31 2006 or January 31, 2006? Also, I plan on citing and developing upon that sullivan leadership shift today. Many thanks for the criticism. Deckiller 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The latter date format, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)