Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive3

Chicago Bears
This is the article about the American Pro Football Team. It is a well-written article covering all the basics about the franchise and its illustrious history in the National Football League. In my opinion, I believe that it is even better than the New England Patriots article, which has gained featured status. I have worked hard on this article and so have other Wikipedia members. This is the third nomination attempt, and I believe I have fixed every single objection that has been presented about this article. As I have been working on this article I have modeled it after Arsenal F.C. featured article, which I believe is one of the best articles written.

Previous Nominations Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive1 Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive2

--Happyman22 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support (Nomination) --Happyman22 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * oppose: the Honey Bears and Bears inn pop culture sections are not necessary, and could be incorperated into the rest of the page. A lot of the information about the remodeling of the stadium  is POV w/o citation, and the History Section is not as descriptive as say the New England Patriots article. The uniforms section should be shortened. Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   petition 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To False Prophet: If these sections are not necessary in the article then the Arsenal F.C. article should be removed from the featured articles list because it has a section involving Arsenal in popular culture. The history section is not as descriptive as the Patroits history because the Bears franchise history is twice as long, and that is why there is a separate daughter article detailing the Bears franchise history. --Happyman22 02:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * RE:To False Prophet The Bears have only a song and some minor things that are easily incorperated into the article.  The Arsenal F.C. article covers a lot more in it.  My point on the History Section it that it is a long section that is not divided up into subsections like the Patriots Article.  It would be better if you divided it up into time periods, as do most professional sports teams articles and Player bios.  There you can incorperate the Bears in Pop culture section.  If you find more info, and can improve it, be my guest and go ahead and I'll re-asess it.  Try and use the New England Patriots article for a good layout for the logo and uniforms section, and the history section.  You won't have similar events of corse, or the same groups, but shows a good break down of how it should be divided up into sub-sections. &mdash;  Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   petition 02:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Corrections The stadium section has in-line citations now in the section. --Happyman22 03:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I have pointed out, using the straigtforward peerreviewer script, quite a few compliance issues for common Wikipedia guidelines. Some of the I already tackled; others are still recommended to be corrected. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Neutral for now. Pretty good article. Many of the sections should be integrated into the history section to provide a chronological account of the team's history. Stuff like logo and uniforms, which may break the pace of the history section, can obviously have its own subsection. Ownership can easily be integrated into the history as per my suggestions. This will make the history section long enough to satisfy almost all opposes. The only opposes you'd probably get after that point (and after some POV neutralizing mentioned above) would be for the prose, which may be a minor issue. &mdash; Deckill e r 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I kind of see what people are trying to point out, but is the question calling for the merging of ownership, uniforms and logos into the history section the only obstacle preventing this article from achieving featured status? --Happyman22 03:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I believe I raised other issues about the Honey Bears, and the Bears in Pop culture section, along with re structuring the History section, and another editor mentioned there are still issues from the previous FAC's to be adressed.


 * What is wrong with the Honey Bears section or the Bears in Pop culture. The pop culture section covers more than just a song.  It talks about Brian's Song, Super Bowl Shuffle, and the SNL skits involving Da Super Fans.  Would you like the section to be expanded maybe?  I don't believe it should be removed because it is necessary. --Happyman22 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe I had said the pop culture section needs to be either expanded or merged into the rest of the article. Here's a list of Professional Sports teams featured articles:
 * New England Patriots
 * Arsenal F.C.
 * Manchester City F.C.
 * IFK Göteborg

notice how not one of them mentions their cheerleading team. Considering the Honey Bears aren't even active, I don't see why they should be included. I still also think the History section should be split up into subsections, to make it easier to read. Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   petition 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Corrections I have merged the ownership section into the history section, which I have also expanded. Also, I am about to divide the history section into sections as per the wishes of False Prophet, Deckill e r, and other Wikipedians.  --Happyman22 19:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Corrections The Honey Bears section has been placed into the history section, and the mascots have been left where they are for now, but they will probably be deleted or moved to the Staley Da Bear page. Any new comments? --Happyman22 23:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Still not completely satisfied with the Pop culture section, but like how the colors and mascot section is now if the mascot section is shortened to a paragraph, with the rest going to the Stanley da bear page. I'll change my vote to Conditional Support.  Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   petition 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I know the concerns I mentioned about organization are not specifically highlighted in the criterion, which is why I remained neutral. It does, however, make the article more comprehensive by integrating things into the history section, giving the reader a good idea of the timeline. &mdash; Deckill e r 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Corrections The mascot section has been shortened to a paragraph as per request and the Bears in Pop culture has been expanded to include more information. --Happyman22 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Good job. All of my concerns have been adressed, and I can't find anything left critisize.  Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   petition 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is invalid, so it has been struck. Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 01:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The only major issue here is the prose in a few areas, but I'm sure if this is an issue to people, they will address it. &mdash; Deckill e r 05:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Logos, helmet and uniform should be in SVG. WP 06:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Where does it say in the critera that images have to be in SVG? --Happyman22 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Critera 1 says feature articles should "exemplifies our very best work" and Uploading images says SVG is the preferred format for drawings and line-art illustsration. WP 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Critera 1 also says that the images can be in PNG just as the helmet and logo are just like in the New England Patriots featured article --Happyman22 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment unless the author of the previous complaint can elaborate more, I request that the previous oppose be striken. Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose sloppy writing. RomeoVoid 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the writing? --Happyman22 15:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the previous oppose has been striken as to raise a valid oppose, you must suggest how the article can be improved. Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Has a number of good parts, but overall currently not a featured article. Jeronimo 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "Current roster" section belongs in this article, it is too specific and biased towards today. It should go to a separate article.
 * The "Statistics and records" section consists entirely of one or two sentence paragraphs.
 * The "Bears in popular culture" section has longer paragraphs, but is also rather choppy and jumps from fact to fact. Some facts are outdated and/or unencylopedic (e.g. Urlacher was a rising star and sold a lot of shirts in 2002).
 * The "Famous players" and "Headcoaches" sections should be included, but should have a little more than just tables/lists. A little could be said about the persons involved. Maybe some overlap with "Stats & records".
 * "Since the founding of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the Bears boast the most enshrined Hall-of-Famers (26)" - this is incorrectly phrased. It's currently saying the Bears have always had the most enshrinees (which is false).
 * The external links need some annotations. It is unclear why there are so many links to fan sites; Wikipedia is not a web directory.
 * It is unclear why the history section is split up in 1920-1967 and 1968-2006.
 * Nothing is said about the popularity of the team. What about spectators, tv viewers, fan club members etc.?
 * Comment The current roster is on every sports team page and cannot be moved, and the "Famous players" and "Headcoaches" sections are the way they are. If a reader wants to read about an individual, they can click on the link to its own page.  As for the other points brought up, I will see if there are some ways I can improve them. --Happyman22 21:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Corrections The Hall of Fame statement was revised so it made sense, the history section was divided up on pre- and post merger, and the stats section was revised and expanded. --Happyman22 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Object This article has some very severe images problems, there are quite a few images their that are claimed as GFDL but they are clearly copyrighted and not the case, while other images are claimed as fair use but has no rationale. This has to be fixed Jaranda wat's sup 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly object - per Jaranda, lots of false GFDL images. FCYTravis 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object image:Virginia mccaskey.gif is unlikely to be fair use and I'm going to need to see some pretty good evidence for the GFDL claims on Image:Soldmain2.jpg, Image:Payton5.jpg and Image:Honeybears.jpg.Geni 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How does one know how to correctly tag an image? --Happyman22 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)