Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1999 NFC Championship Game/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2016.

Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1999 NFC Championship Game

 * Nominator(s): Helltopay27 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the NFC Championship Game. It is a well known play in NFL history that is pointed to as the prime reason why an all-time great team didn't reach the Super Bowl. I started this page as a draft and just made it to an article. I believe that it is of featured article quality. Helltopay27 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: In the lead, you say that a 10-point lead with 2:07 remaining would be "insurmountable" and link to three references. If at least one of these references specifically says it was insurmountable, please provide the quote, as I find this claim dubious (to use a high school comparison). This is important since it establishes whether the article should exist in the first place, especially in the absence of a 1999 NFC Championship Game article and the closest being this section of the 1998-99 NFL playoffs article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding notability, it's been my experience that NFL editors only consider the Super Bowl and old league championship games automatically notable for stand-alone articles. Most playoff game summaries are placed in articles like 2014–15 NFL playoffs, with some individual articles for particularly well-known games. We do have some articles on famous plays, including The Drive, The Fumble, and my personal favorite, so it's not unheard of for plays to have articles. I did a Google search to inform myself, and much of the coverage was about the play instead of the rest of the game; maybe the lack of a good nickname makes this seem less notable than other plays. I do agree with you that we shouldn't imply that a 10-point deficit is impossible to overcome. My favorite team lost a 9-point lead to the Vikings in the final two minutes of a playoff game almost 20 years ago, so it can be done. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the intro the best place for a quote? I think that reestablishing that point with a quote, perhaps in "The kick" section, would be more appropriate. In either case, I can provide a quote from the Prospectus reference. As for notability, The Helmet Catch was originally titled "Eli Manning's pass to David Tyree" because of lack of a concensus nickname at the time. I agree that the lack of a nickname may lend the appearance of lack of notability even though it certainly is noteworthy. Helltopay27 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you both make good points regarding notability. As far as the Prospectus quote, if you could provide that I'd appreciate it. The book isn't searchable on Google Books, so I couldn't pull up the quote myself. If you like, you can even add it to that ref in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See the edits I made to the line in question and the section "The kick." It turns out my memory was a little too good, and the line in question was a direct quote from Prospectus. I've changed the line and have added quotes to the kick section. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, with serious reservations about whether this should be its own article. Much of the prose is not about the play itself—Background and Game Summary belong in an article about the game. Arguably the Aftermath section is stretched to be an addendum to "Game Summary". What we're left with is "The kick" which is straining to include enough relevant detail to be its own section, and Legacy, which is mostly a collection of trivia (inclusion on Top 10 lists, etc) and quotes from sportswriters who were compiling entertaining "Foul Ups" and "Missing Rings" TV spots. There seems to be a lack of much serious journalism about this play, which means to me it's just not material for an encyclopedia article. You've done a lot of good research to make this, and I encourage you to fold it into an expanded article about the game. -- Laser brain   (talk)  15:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See above and relevant thread in article's talk page, and Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. The guidelines do not mention a determination of serious journalism, (which is a subjective concept regardless) rather neutral and reliable secondary sources. The trivial content you've highlighted are from documentary shows produced by the NFL Network (which considering it is the official network of the league would constitute a reliable source) and sports journalists published on reputable websites. (ESPN, Sporting News, etc.) All of these sources focus on the kick rather than the game and establish the kick as its own separate subject in NFL lore and not as merely a side note within the game itself. The first two paragraphs of the Kick section highlight are not meant to strain for detail, but rather highlight the gravity of the kick and its consequences. The Aftermath section also highlights specific instances in which the kick is elucidated as a major influence on the course of the game itself and does not simply stand as a continuation of the game summary. (Although the first two paragraphs do.) Your remaining points would undermine the concept of having any plays merit their own article, as such background information, as well as a summary of the game, would be necessary for any complete article about a significant play in NFL history. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I've not spent too long on this and I'm just finding loads and loads of issues, listed below, that really ought to have been sorted out before coming to FAC. Get a copyedit from someone who knows nothing at all about American football and come back? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – I haven't read through the article in-depth, but did want to note that leads don't generally have to be cited if their content is adequately supported by the body. For cases such as the direct quote, it's preferable to cite them, so I understand that one. However, you surely don't need two references to support the fact that the Vikings were playing the Falcons. Also, I peeked at the legacy section since it was mentioned by Laser brain, and was surprised that there is little on how that game turned out to be the best opportunity for one of the Vikings teams of that period to reach the Super Bowl (or something along those lines). There are a couple of quotes, but no real details on how the franchise declined. It looks like the ESPN source here has some good content on that front, although it doesn't seem to mention their next appearance in the NFC Championship Game, which I remember. :-) If additions can be made here, it would make the section appear more substantial, helping to address Laser's point. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, you could add something on whether the miss affected Anderson's career, if possible. Did he remain a top-level kicker, or did the miss have negative effects on him in following years? The readers are kind of left to guess in this regard. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For the two references regarding playing the Falcons, those references were meant to support the idea that the lead was insurmountable. Considering the direct quote, I wasn't sure the best way to format this. Suggestions? As for everything else, you bet, I'll get to work on this. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose from Dweller
 * Just checking ... is it properly called the "NFC Championship Game" or the "NFC Championship game"? Or something else?
 * If that's accurate, why the inconsistency with "the league championship game"?
 * Avoid the redirect in NFL lore
 * "upstart Falcons" please, no journalistic, fansite POV, this is Wikipedia
 * "Despite being the first franchise in NFL history to appear in the game four times, the Vikings have never won a Super Bowl," consider reworking so the reader doesn't have to work so hard - what "game" isn't explained until the second half of the sentence, which is needless
 * "the loss in the NFC Championship" is this missing the word "Game"?
 * "The Vikings' loss in the Championship Game contributed to the franchise's history of devastating moments, and Anderson's missed field goal has been highlighted by the NFL Network as the main contributing factor." Sentence is entirely unsourced despite including POV before the comma and an apparent quote after. It's also poor English. The subject of the sentence is apparently the franchise's history (contributed to by the loss), and it's doubtful that one play is the main contributing factor to that.
 * Is the next sentence a repetition of the previous?
 * "the second most snake-bitten franchise of all-time" is unencyclopedic language and I barely understand what it means. If it's a quote, put it in quote marks
 * Is Jeff Diamond Jeff Diamond?

Closing comment -- I'm going to archive this and ask that the above comments be considered/actioned outside the FAC process; after that I'd strongly recommend putting it through Peer Review, requesting input from the above editors (among any others you can think of), before looking at any re-nomination for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.