Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American football/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] American football

Self-nom. I believe this is a great article, and with help and suggestions I'd love it if this made the main page on February 6, 2005 - Super Bowl Sunday. Rhobite 06:44, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not a vote, but I would expect this to be In the news on Feb 6, and therefore not the front page FA. Mark1 07:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I expect that Super Bowl XXXIX will be the bold item in the news, not American football. Although with the bias on ITN, we'll be lucky if it's listed at all. Regardless, is there a rule against featuring an article which is in the news? Rhobite 21:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Super Bowl XXXIX would presumably mention American football at some point; and yes, there is (a rule against featuring in the news articles on the front page, not against them being featured articles per se). Mark1 01:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • The general principle is that we shouldn't link to the same article twice from the main page. In practice, that means that the featured article should avoid being newsworthy, because if it is, then it is likely to be redundant with In the News. →Raul654 19:58, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Lead section too short. 2) References seem insufficient; books should probably be added or at least to "Further reading". 3) Order of the section is strange. "Development of the game" (or "History") should be one of the first, popularity certainly not. I would roughly expect the following parts: I) History II) Rules III) Current status. 4) The explanation of the rules is not very transparant, and difficult to follow. Resectioning, with appropriate summaries of all rules must be done here. 5) Several of the poitns discussed in the "Beyond recreation and entertainment" perhaps do not belong in this article. Either way, they should have a source mentioned. 6) External links contain "random" links like "anabolic steroids" and "1903 football game". These are only marginally interesting to the article. 7) There is nothing about history after 1912 or so. We need at least a few names of great football players, and a link to a list of them. And when was the Super Bowl first played? What about all those other "Bowl" games? Jeronimo 07:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Responses: 1. Lead sections should in general be 1-3 paragraphs, read Wikipedia:Lead section. We worked hard to trim down nonessential information from the lead section, but I suppose we could put back a paragraph if people want. 2. Yes, we need more references. 3. I think the rules need to come first. Are style objections like this one actionable? 4. I can't imagine how this could be done. The rules are complex, and we've already simplified them a bunch - read American football rules if you want to see the stuff which was taken out. Simplify them any more, and you are removing meaning. 5. I agree, the "beyond" section could use a little work. 6. Agree re: steroids, disagree re: the 1903 game, it's a video of an old game of football - what could be more relevant? 7. Agree, we need more recent history too. Thanks for the suggestions. Rhobite 21:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, here are some replies. 1) Yes, it should be 1 to 3, but it is only 1 now, and the length should be longer when the article is, since it should summarize the contents, not just the topic. 3) They are actionable, but also debatable. I still find it strange to read about defunct leagues before I know when and how the game came into existence. 4) I'm not asking to simplify the contents, I'm asking to reorganize it. It's messy right now. 6) A 1903 game video may be relevant, but so is a link to any video or picture or piece of text about football. The sites presented here should allow the user to find out a lot more about the game. If you think the video is particularly interesting to use in the encyclopedia, upload the file and place it here (if copyright etc. allows for it of course). Jeronimo 20:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Two of the images are from http://www.sxc.hu and, looking at the terms on that site (http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=terms) they are not compatible with Wikipedia's requirements. —Steven G. Johnson 08:14, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please re-read Stock Xchng's terms of use - they depend on each image, and in general they are compatible with Wikipedia. The photo of the ball has no usage restrictions, so it is definitely compatible with Wikipedia. The tackle photo is free for noncommercial use, so it isn't compatible with Wikipedia. I removed it from the article, so do you have any more objections? Rhobite 21:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • The terms of Stock Xchng include things like, "Selling and redistribution of these photos (individually, or as a whole) without written permission is prohibited." This is not compatible with Wikipedia. The author of the ball photo wrote on her entry, "Feel free to use what you see!" but "use" is not very specific — for example, it could be read as saying to Stock Xchng "feel free to use this image under the terms you posted for all uploaders", or "feel free to use this image, but I don't grant you the right to redistribute it". Please realize that the default under US copyright law is to grant no permission at all; without an explicit grant of permission, especially for both commercial and non-commercial redistribution (contrary to the Stock Xchng default), I don't see how we can use the image. (Feel free to try and contact the image author for permission, though!) —Steven G. Johnson 05:35, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • Directly under the photo of the ball, it says "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." This is effectively a public domain license - clearly compatible with Wikipedia. I really don't understand this objection. Rhobite 20:59, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Article is overly dominated by the rules and mechanics of play, much of which would be better handled in separate articles and summarized here. For example, the detailed analysis of fourth down strategy and the long list of different penalties are definitely excessive. To better balance the article, the development and history certainly could be expanded. Right now the section stops at 1912 by saying, "The game had achieved its modern form", which is incredibly simplistic and at best only true in terms of the technical details of point-scoring and field dimensions. Also, in spite of the heavy rules orientation, article entirely omits any discussion of equipment - how do you mention a face mask penalty without even having discussed that players wear helmets? (They only get mentioned in passing later, talking about injuries.) Even the unusual shape of the ball itself is only addressed in the caption of a picture; the evolution of the ball needs to be covered in the history section. --Michael Snow 21:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object . Having two images in the intro causes the article to be ugly when viewed by my browser (Mozilla Firefox). The second photo (CSU v. Air Force) appears on top of the table of contents which is rendered as very narrow and long. This is a minor fix. More serious is the fact that article, except for a mention of the field size, completely neglects the most popular variant, high school football. Dsmdgold 13:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me! --Daniel11 13:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_American_football_archive1_d4f8.html"