Talk:Packers sweep

Pre-FAC comments
Okay.....


 * this line, " It was developed before its use by Lombardi and is known formally as a power sweep." I had to read a couple of times before I got what it said - I think it needs rewording. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at the article!
 * How does "The basic tenets of the Packers sweep are derived from the power sweep, a play that was developed prior to its use by the Packers." « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 20:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * better. will get back to it soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 23:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * is there any information on the decline of the packers? Did they stop using the sweep or did other clubs try? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there a legacy? How has it been generalised since? If not why not?

The prose is otherwise in good shape - it's a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC) , I made some changes and updates. Let me know what you think about the quality of the article now? Anything else that you see that I can do to improve it? « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is a lot of information on the decline of the Packers in the 1970s and 1980s. None of my sources connect the dots between this play and their decline though. It had more to do with aging stars, Lombardi moving on from the team, and poor leadership/player development. I could add something saying as much, or just briefly mention that Lombardi left, and with it the use of the sweep declined. Other teams did try to replicate the Packers' success with the play, but all either fell short or did not sustain the success long enough or it to become notable. The sweep is still routinely run in American football today, but the overall decline of the running game and focus on the passing game has diminished its overall importance for the Packers and the NFL. Let me know what you think. Here is a good overview of the decline of the Packers after the 1960s.
 * The legacy of the play is really summed up in that it epitomized the 1960s Packers and Lombardi's success. Let me know if there is more I can add to the Legacy section to make this clearer. Again, I really appreciate the assistance! « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I made a few unrelated edits here c/e'ing the lead and reference clean-up. As a multi-page journal I was also thinking of moving reference 1 to the bibliography and then citing the page numbers. What is your opinion on taking that route, since this is a journal and not a book? « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 22:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a few more edits, including moving the journal to the bibliography. I like the result better than what it was previously. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 02:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also finally got Run to Daylight! in the mail today, so I may have a few additional details and citations that I can add from that. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 22:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks good, although this line (There was nothing special or spectacular about the Packers sweep.) might be superfluous. Look, I think it is worth a whirl at FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I revised the sentence per your recommendations. I will move it forward to WP:FAC. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 16:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion re writing...
Hi there, nice article. The lead and legacy sections repeat sentences word for word. The intro and summary of an article should cover the same ground (to use a football pun), but build on ideas, not repeat phrases.

As a writer, I would like to suggest that you step back from being too fussed about quoting texts from citations, which should not be word for word copies anyways, and try and re-write the legacy sentences to freshen them up. Wikipedia must start from citations, but at some point, we need to actually sit down and "write an article".

I could do this for you, and I often do on articles, but reading the Talk page, you seem to be keen on the subject, and I think your writing development might benefit from editing your own work. cheers Ben

PS: you might consider adding something about why the Packers sweep is no longer common in the modern game. What changed? 184.69.174.194 (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Ben/IP 184. Although I appreciate the offer of a rewrite, as I am sure you are aware (and can see from the talk page) there have been numerous levels of reviews and revisions. A complete rewrite is most likely unnecessary and counterproductive (i.e it may be more beneficial for you to spend your time working on less complete articles, although how you choose to edit is obviously your prerogative), but constructive edits are always appreciated! Regarding citations, because the topic is about 50 years old, we really are limited to what is verifiable in the sources that are available. I think any fan of American football knows the narrative of how the passing game has taken over and teams aren't built for power running anymore, but unfortunately in my research there just aren't any sources that connect this trend with the Packers sweep falling into disuse (if you have one, please feel free to add it!). All that said, I did slightly reword the last sentence to make it more distinct from the lead (so it's not word-for-word). Regarding the lead, I try to follow MOS:LEAD, however, again, if there are any helpful edits you want to make, go for it! Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Source to Add
Putting here for now: « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 17:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Done, added it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 15:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)