Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peyton Manning/archive1

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 00:05, 22 February 2008.

[edit] Peyton Manning

Check external links

Self-nomination. I feel that the article is accurate, stable, and well-written. The article is already listed as a Good Article. I requested a peer review as well, but nothing came of it other than an automated review. Dlong (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Well-written and well referenced. Basketball110 _{vandalise me} 16:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I couldn't understand much of this article, I know I come from a different culture but are expressions like, "Manning is well-known for his pre-snap routine. The Colts rarely huddle, preferring to have Manning call the plays at the line of scrimmage, accompanied with numerous hand gestures" OK in the Lead of a Wikipedia Featured Article? Also all those numbers! Doesn't the Manual of Style provide some guidance on this? --GrahamColm^Talk 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. I've tried to read this article again, but I can't get past all the jargon. This is a big problem in the Professional career section. Here's but one example of many expressions that are meaningless to me: "they blew a 21–0 lead". --GrahamColm^Talk 17:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a FA because you have poor reading comprehension skills? That's a valid use of the verb "to blow". [1]

Oppose: like Graham + look at the section references.--jskellj - the nice devil 17:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I appreciate the comments. The reference section problem was caused by a user editing the page to correct some information that I inadvertently inserted twice. However, by removing this information, he accidentally broke a couple of references. Regarding the 'pre-snap routine', I will be adding a section to Profession Career that will explain this in more detail. Regarding jargon, I will like some more information as to what you consider jargon. "blew a 21-0 lead" seems quite clear to me, although I have watched athletics for years. What would you consider an acceptable alternative? "They surrendered a 21-0 lead"? "They led 21-0, but still lost"? Issues like these are why I requested a peer review, but unfortunately the only user interested in helping me was a robot. Dlong (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully sympathies with here Dlong. Any user on here will advice you that you should give any article a PR before nominating, but my experience has been that unless you alert users on there talk page of this you are unlikely to gain feedback. So I suggest in future you go to the Wikiprojects the article is a member of , find the main users of the project and alert them of the PR on there talk page.

In this spsific case I think a copy edit would have been a good idea. Just at a glance I see the Tennessee Volunteers being referred to as “the Vols”, “blew a 28–7 lead”, “was held without a touchdown”, “their now-signature no-huddle offense” and “exorcised his big-game demons”. Buc (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Short, choppy writing and paragraphs. Much jargon. Writing is hardly brilliant prose. Many refs in middle of a sentence, normally they should be at the end of a sentence or clause. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, references need minor fixes but otherwise it seems great to me. HoosierState^Talk 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on "Support" above: I don't think the refs need any work, I think that the best part, well referenced article. B110 _{communicate (that means talk)} 04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Object per Sumoeagle179 basically. The prose is often choppy (just check the second choppy paragraph of the lead). The article needs copy-editing. And indeed the placement of the inline citations is wrong. You overdo it, and interrupt too often the text with citations. But I must admit that the nominator was unfortunate, because his article did not draw much attention, in order to get the proper advice.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I was unfortunate. I would say, instead, that the peer review process is a joke, and an utter waste of time. Frankly, I'm not sure why we even have it. I've requested three peer reviews on three different articles and received (with the exception of the automated reviews) exactly 0 advice. I've requested a copyedit from the League of Copyeditors or whatever they call themselves, but there is little doubt in my mind that I will again be completely ignored. You guys are strict, and that's fine; you should be. However, from my personal experience, there is absolutely no way to get help from other users on any article I work on, which quite frankly makes this whole process useless. I will do the best I can to improve the article, but since I'm clearly on my own in this endeavor, and since writing is not my area of expertise, I doubt it will ever reach the standards required. Nonetheless, thank you for making the featured article criteria clear, even if it's a standard I will never be able to reach. Dlong (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The semi-automated peer review comments are helpful, but seem to have been ignored for the most part in this article. For example, the script still finds that this article needs non-breaking spaces between numbers and units, that it wikilinks dates without years, has the order of the last sections wrong, uses contractions, and has a few other easily fixable errors. See here for the full list. There is a list of volunteers at peer review - I have found them to be very helpful - did you ask? Another good way to get reviews is to make some comments yourself and ask for comments in return. I also know that LoCE is also quite busy so it takes a while. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - As regards the semi-automated peer review, I believe that I fixed all the nonbreaking spaces before "yards", the contractions are in titles in references, and I could not find an unlinked date (perhaps the script is fooled by links to years in seasons and Pro Bowls, etc.). The "See also" section still should come before "References" and "External links". I also find numerous other MOS and grammatical problems - a few examples (not a complete list): Ref. 135 (Meet Mrs. Manning) is an internet link but has no date retrieved on. There are zero refs in the first paragraph of the "Early years" section (and it does not repeat items from the lead such as his birth date or the name of his younger brother - see WP:LEAD). In the second paragraph, these two sentences on his high school career are either an error or just confusing: As a junior, Manning went 8–2 in the regular season and made it to the state semifinals before losing to Haynesville, tying the school's best finish.[17] During his junior year, they went 11–2 and advanced to the state quarterfinals, with Manning throwing 30 touchdown passes.[18] (I think perhaps he was a sophomore in the first sentence?). Just one more example, from the "Charitable works" section Manning and his wife made a donation of an undisclosed amount to St. Vincent's and has had a relationship with the hospital since his arrival in Indianapolis.[13][14] Subject is plural at the start and singlular by the end of the sentence. Too many problems to be FA and too many to fix in FAC. A very good start, but needs some polish. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.