Wikipedia:Peer review/Sergio Brown/archive1

Sergio Brown

First article I've rewritten to get passed as GA, hoping to get it to FAC but would like to get back to it and improve it in any capacity.

Thanks, Joeyquism (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:FAC peer review sidebar

I have added the article to the FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there, or to review articles at WP:FAC. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith

• I suspect some folks at FAC will question some of your sources, so be ready for that. Is https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ really a WP:RS?
• You've got a lot of very short sections, consisting of a single paragraph. And some single-sentence paragraphs. Those tend not to be appreciated at FAC.
• Here's the big question: why is this person notable? He looks like a marginal player who banged around a few teams in the NFL with little to no success. If it were not for the story about his mother's death, would anybody have noticed him, i.e. WP:BLP1E applies. I would strongly suggest pinging WT:CRIME and getting input from people who work more in this area. @Riley1012: you did the GA review, but I don't see that you asked about this at all, which surprises me a bit. RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for the comments! I have addressed them below:

  • PFR is what is generally used for statistics and basic biographical information for college-level and professional football players; it appears as a widely credited source on the FA-class articles for Otto Graham, Bob Mann (American football), Billy Joe Tolliver, etc. NFL.com used to be used as a source in infoboxes, but it was deprecated in a recent discussion. I'm also aware that this article needs a massive reference cleanup effort - I'll try and do that sometime in the near future.
  • This one is mostly my fault. I'm not necessarily sure on how to expand further on the shorter sections; perhaps I can do without some of the shorter sections and/or combine them.
  • I think the basic WP:SPORTCRIT validates his inclusion on Wikipedia, and while I do agree that he was a marginal player, what makes him any less notable than, say, Captain Munnerlyn, Darryl Milburn, Marquise Walker (all quality articles for mostly unremarkable players) or Chris Gragg (a FA for a guy who played on one team for three years before retiring)? I would argue that Brown is far more notable than any of these players, with reliable news coverage on him being a "great example", his trivial football bickering, and his work at Google in addition to the coverage of his crime. I wouldn't call myself a good criminal biography writer, so I will take your suggestion re: WT:CRIME.

  Joeyquism (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• WP:SPORTCRIT says, The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level. What level of success did he achieve?
  • As far as I can tell, there are no definite guidelines for what determines notability in American football. Merely being rostered in the NFL, the highest professional level of American football in the world, is generally what defines the most basic level of success in the sport, and while it doesn't necessarily warrant the creation of an article, I think Brown has surpassed that by 1. actually playing in at least one NFL game, which is something that some rostered people never actually do 2. having a relatively long career (6 seasons is well beyond a number of notable NFL players' careers) 3. appearing and recording stats in the NFL playoffs, including in Super Bowl XLVI. Notability is also supplemented by numerous pre-2020s articles that focus on him or, at the very least, mention his name as someone who is the subject of trades/action on the field.
• As for the short sections, I'd merge them. WP:FACR is looking for prose which is "engaging and of a professional standard". GA is about being accurate and correct. FA is about telling a good story. All of these short little sections are more of a listing of facts. What you want to do is take that collection of facts and weave it into a compelling narative.
  • Done. I think with that being said, this isn't a great candidate for FAC - I think I've written better articles than this. If it's possible to withdraw this from FAC consideration, I'd be okay with doing so. However, I do appreciate any feedback to improve anything I've written.

Closing this peer review now. --Joeyquism (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)