Wikipedia:Peer review/New York Jets/archive1

New York Jets

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... the article has been extensively renovated since it passed GA in August 2010. My aim is to take it to FAC and I would appreciate any feedback before I do so.

Thanks, The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Looks to be in excellent shape. There may be issues as to what is expected in a NFL team article that I am not familiar with.

Lede

• "In a unique arrangement" I would add "for the league". Ground sharing is not terribly unusual on a worldwide basis, for example the two Milan soccer teams at the San SIro.
• " in the merger of 1970" The leagues actually merged earlier, they just played together after 1970 (well, you know that).

History

• "1965 draftee" Again being pedantic, but Namath was drafted in December 1964. Finding this one tricky to rephrase though, perhaps you will have a better idea.
• Several sentences require citation. I'm sure you can grab cites off of the History article.
• " Rich Kotite was elected" Perhaps an s is missing, and so "selected"?
• "straight" better as "consecutive"
• "In spite of this period of instability," Cut. The stability of the team really had nothing to do with Johnson's purchase. I daresay the Hess estate did better than it would have had Hess died in spring 1996 though.
• Can anything be done about all that whitespace? Perhaps insert an image, just to make it work for a living?

Rivalries

• I merely note that no one particularly cared about the games against the Patriots at least until 1997 and the Parcells contretemps. They were always about equal as the rivalry with the Bills. The Dolphins game was what was huge. Of course what I think is not as important as what the sources say. I merely point out my personal views
• I would mention the Giants games of the late 80s, especially the 1988 game. It may also be a good idea to mention that the teams opened the stadium together.
• Perhaps worth mentioning that quirks in the schedule resulted in the Jets playing at the Raiders several successive years in 2000 to about 2004 (you find out) as well as the playoff meetings. The fact that all the games seemed to be in hostile Oakland (perhaps Oaksterdam should open a concession stand) contributed its share to the rivalry.
• Is anything worth saying about Jets-Colts? If not, perhaps in the future.
• It might not be a bad idea to write a paragraph or two about the Jets' 1st round picks, both the jackpots (Namath, perhaps Sanchez, we'll see) and the busts (the margin is too narrow to contain them all but Blair Thomas to start). The four picks the Jets had the one year when they drafted Pennington et all could be worth a mention.

That's all I have. It's short in terms of text, but I don't see any reason why that should stop it from being an FAs. If short articles on horses and hurricanes can make it, why not on the Jets?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments – I was asked to come here by Wehwalt to offer some thoughts.

• My first thought is that you picked quite a task. As far as I know, no NFL team articles are currently FAs, and there aren't many for the other major U.S. team sports. If you want a model, Seattle Sounders FC is probably the best one from recent times, but this is from a different sport. Two other good reads are the FARs for the Bears and Patriots, which may offer a clue as to what reviewers expect in such an article (full disclosure: I nommed the Bears article).
• The lead is three paragraphs, but they're fairly short ones and don't have that much similarity to what's in the body. Before going to FAC it would be smart to revise the lead with those things in mind. I don't think the article demands a four-paragraph lead, but slightly longer paras more closely related to the rest of the article would be good.
• Structure-wise, things seem reasonable for the most part. However, I see a couple areas that could be improved. First, I'd move the statistics section down several sections, perhaps around the players. It feels in the way of the writing to me. Also, the history section is a little short compared to a couple other sections. Another paragraph or so wouldn't hurt, especially considering the Sounders article has a longer section for what amounts to an expansion team.
• The Rivalry section feels overly long to me, with too much detail. To offer one example, I'm not sure what relevance the Yankees – Red Sox rivalry has to the football teams. Looking at a sports team FA, Manchester United F.C., reveals two small paragraphs for rivalries, for a team that has much more famous rivalries than the Jets. This may be too little, but what's there now is too much. I also don't know how many of these "rivalries" are relevant. Were the Jets really ever rivals with the Colts other than one game, which was more of a league rivalry being played out?
• The Logos and uniforms section will be a massive problem at FAC and could well prevent passage by itself. There are numerous non-free photos here, and I doubt they will all be considered to meet the criteria. Many of the soccer team FAs provide actual prose on the uniforms of the teams over time. There probably isn't as much for NFL teams, but it would be nice to have whatever is available. Either way, the photos need to go. The article won't pass with them in. The logos in the infobox will cause enough trouble as is.
• Took a glance at the sourcing and it looks reliable, so that's good. Just make sure that your printed publications are italicized in the cites, and that your page ranges have en dashes.
• If there's a thought that the article is short, like Wehwalt said, that could hurt its chances. The horses and hurricanes may not have that much published about them in reliable sources. The same certainly can't be said about the Jets. However, I didn't find it overly short myself, and if the lead and history are beefed up, then it's even less of an issue. Consider it a side benefit.

You may notice that I gave no prose review here. That's because I consider it secondary at this point. Because there's no similar FA, structure is the most important factor in whether an FAC will be successful at this point. The best thing to do would be to get one or two other regular reviewers in here who aren't NFL fans like myself, and ask them to have a look at the article. This is not the type of article where one or two reviewers is likely to be enough for a peer review. Still, I wish you the best of luck. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight and I would appreciate any and all help that is offered. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A few questions were left on my talk page. I'll respond to them here, if that's all right.

• The lead is better, but it's hard to tell without the infobox. Perhaps aim for another sentence or two in each paragraph, and make sure everything in the lead is represented in the body.
• A lead-in paragraph on the draft picks would be a nice addition, but I think seven is overkill. I wouldn't even recommend that many for the lead of the list itself.
• I'm not the foremost expert on images at FAC. For good advice on the logos, try asking User:Jappalang or User:Nikkimaria, as they know far more than I do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments I'll keep this short, I haven't read anyone else's comments so I may be reiterating what they are saying. Overall the article is too short, the history section in particular has gone summary style crazy. I would double that in size at least. I know that there are some editors who support this style for an NFL or sports article but if you look at the Toronto Raptors FAC or the New England Patriots FAR you can see that view has been shot down in the past. Also after looking at 7-8 current sports FAs at random all of the ones I checked have significantly longer history sections; really that should be the heart of the article. An article about the Jets should tell you more about the Jets than about the stadiums they played in. Also, the Logos section should summarize the Logos article, not just include a gallery and a link to the main article. AaronY (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood and I do plan to lengthen the history section but, I don't want to make it so long that there is essentially no need for the History of the New York Jets article either. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There are inconsistencies between jets' and jets's. Quite a lot.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)