Talk:Germany Schulz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.
After the FAC director promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ArticleHistory}} template when the FAC closes.
Good article Germany Schulz has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 26, 2007.
February 15, 2008 Good article nominee Listed


[edit] Auto peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused at Auto Peer Review

Not sure I understand the comments you left on the talk page. I thought the articles were in pretty good shape (in fact some of my best work), but your long laundry list of Auto Peer Review comments and criticisms make it sound like they are in need of a major overhaul. Can you be specific as to what it is you think needs to be done. I'm tempted to just pull them all back from good article consideration. Maybe that's what I'll do.Cbl62 (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 6, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:Fail. This article is very extensive for about a 10 year period, but almost TOO extensive, it becomes a list of minutae at times with no sense of why someone should care about this person as an individual rather than a collection of statistics. In short, it lacks "sparkling prose." This person is interesting and controversial, but you have to wade through minutae to figure out who he was. It also repeats itself in some places, reads like a recitation of individual sentences, lacks "flow."
I have done a substantial copy-edit to remove much of what might be considered minutae and have tried to improve the flow. I have tried to focus on the things that make him interesting, controversial, and notable, namely, (i) his role as an innovator in the early years of the game, and the game's first linebacker, (ii) the reasons for his selection as the greatest center of all time, (iii) the controversies over his alleged status as a "ringer" and academic eligibility (I have also added further context on the ringer allegations), and (iv) the 1908 game which is the single event in Schulz's life about which more has been written than anything else.Cbl62 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail. It covers some years in extensive depth, but then glosses over his coaching career and puts the last 30 years of his life into a sparse paragraph. One section doesn't tie into the next. Even if there is not a lot of information, inquiring minds wonder why he gave up the sport, and what connection, if any, did his death have with the All-American selection? Was he in ill health prior? Was there stress or controversy over the nomination? This fellow appears to have had some carreer controversy, but it is not put into context, it's sort of dotted here and there for the reader to figure out on their own. Did he marry? Did he have kids? What insurance company did he work for? (Do we care,and if not, why?)
I have tried to adjust the balance by eliminating unneeded detail about his years as a player. I have also beefed up discussion of his contributions as a coach, though such information is limited. However, the fact is that the information is quite sparse about his later years. Schulz was known and remembered for his contributions while involved in football -- not for the 30 years he spent as an insurance agent. Having conducted extensive research (the article cites more than 75 articles), there just isn't information much out there about his later life. Even his obituary makes no mention of his having married or had kids. As for the question about any connection between his selection as the best center of all time and his death two weeks later, one wonders about the connection, and the coincidence is interesting. However, I felt that it would not be encyclopedic to include speculation about such a connection. Instead, I think the best we can do is note the coincidence in timing and leave to the reader whether any connection can be drawn. By the way, he had been ill for months before his selection, as noted in the article.Cbl62 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I like your changes. I had another reviewer give it a look-see and he spotted the following:
"Ref number 51 is broken somehow,YesY and the first infobox image doesn't have author info (just see if it's available, if not no big deal so long as there is a source). Other than those, it's definitely GA." So if you can fix that minor stuff, I'll pass it. Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the article. I put a lot of effort into it and got so caught up in some of the minutae that the article as a whole suffered. Sometimes, when you do a heavily researched pieces with so many sources, you get attached to each little "gem" of information you find. Your comments helped me take a step back and reevaluate. I think it does read better now. I fixed the broken cite, and as for the author, I assume you mean the author for the photo?? If so, my co-author added the photo and has included source information but no information is listed as to the photographer. Cbl62 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You passed. Congrats! Montanabw(talk) 20:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)