Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heidi 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 promoted by Ucucha 15:26, 24 September 2011.

Heidi Game

 * Nominator(s): The Writer 2.0 Talk 12:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC), 

I am nominating this for featured article because... we feel it meets the criteria. The Heidi Game was a turning point for the world of professional football though it has seemingly become a mere distant memory for everyone else except Jets and Raiders fans. While football fans were less than thrilled to see a little girl on top of a mountain with a minute remaining in an exciting game, Heidi did pave the way for the revision of television procedures which, as a result, now allow sports fans to watch their games to the final seconds... and allow networks to avoid dropping the ball (and yet they still manage to). The Writer 2.0 Talk 12:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto, ditto as conom. We've tried to devote as much attention to the TV happenings as possible, while still doing justice to a very exciting football game, and to both football teams, although the Jets certainly had more to say about it, and more colorfully!  We did take care to consult books on the Raiders, and Oakland newspaper coverage, which is included in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Transcluded at approximately this timestamp: Ucucha (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
 * Is Pro! paginated?
 * The pages I got from the Hall of Fame do not have page numbers. It is possible the local inserts were not given page numbers.  I don't have a complete copy of Pro!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in how page ranges are notated - for example, 13–8 vs 90–93
 * Use a consistent date format
 * FN 42, 45, 46, 53: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are also from the Heidi Game file at the Hall of Fame. They had newspaper clippings, cut out and pasted to pages.  They do not in all cases include the page numbers.  Some of then didn't have dates, those I could not use.  So we don't have page numbers.  On the comments I did not reply to, either I or TW2.0 will work through.  Thank you for a very thorough review as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: I have given this two once-overs and have found a very well written, well sourced article, typical of the work of Wehwalt and The Writer 2.0. I see no reason why it shouldn't be pushed to Featured Article status. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review, and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks: An excellent article and very entertaining in places. I'm not a footballer at all and while I have a rudimentary grasp, I do not understand the rules. As such, I was slightly lost in places here but was able to follow most of it sufficiently well, particularly when following links. I also found it a little hard to keep track of which team was being referred to, or which player was which, but despite my ignorance was able to work it out without too much trouble. It seems very comprehensive and explains the background very well. Fantastic work. Just a few points, some of which are minor enough to be ignored and none of them affect my support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "…called NBC to inquire about the schedule, or to complain or opine…": Is the first "or" necessary?
 * "to the responsible employees": Minor point, but this sounds like employees who are responsible in the sense of dedicated. Perhaps "employees responsible"? But feel free to ignore this if you want.
 * Could the winning record ("7–5–2") be explained on its first mention for people (like me!) unfamiliar with the convention. (It is made more confusing by the 13-1 record mentioned shortly after)
 * "NBC hoped that viewers who tuned their television channel selectors to the game would not walk over to the television and change the channel or turn off the power switch…" Seems unnecessarily wordy; why not just "change the channel or switch off the television"?
 * I am emphasizing to the reader that there was no remote control in those days. Actual physical action was required.  The problems of the Heidi game are dependent on the shortcomings of Sixties technology, and we take every opportunity to remind the reader, so to speak, that Connal could not have texted Cline.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Nice idea, actually. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "that saw running back Charlie Smith score his first touchdown of the game on a 3-yard pass from Lamonica…": I'm never sure about using "saw" like this in sports articles (and I'm guilty myself). And, unless it is standard football terminology, score a touchdown on a pass does not sound quite right to me.
 * "with Lamonica finding", "The fourth quarter began with Raiders' running back Smith fumbling" and "With the Raiders trailing": noun-verbing.
 * I agree with the first one. "To fumble" is a legitimate verb that has usages outside football.  And "to trail" is a common football usage, in fact, sports in general, for "losing to".


 * "Ridlehuber could not remember whether AFL rules permitted advancing a fumbled kickoff return, so tried to make it appear he was entering the end zone with the same motion he gathered in the ball." Was this controversial at all, as it appears he may have been bending the rules? It may also be worth saying if it actually was within the rules or not.
 * The rules did permit it. Ridlehuber was probably thinking of the muffed punt rule, which did not come into play because it wasn;'t a punt.  It wasn't controversial because no one else thought of it because it wasn't a punt!


 * "who was stymied": Unencyclopedic word? Not sure.
 * "The eastern half of the nation…" Presumably, as implied earlier, everyone else saw the ending of the game? Possibly worth mentioning.
 * Yes, except within 90 miles of Oakland.


 * The television reaction section is brilliant! Especially the Clary quote.
 * Thank you on behalf of both of us. I just happened to pick up that Clary book in a used bookstore.


 * "The uniforms were not seen again…" Foul play? Or just an accident?
 * I can't find any follow up on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "With the Raiders trailing by four points, Lamonica, attempting to extend the Raiders' final drive, attempted a pass to Smith to the right, the ball sailed over Smith's head and fell to the ground.": A little too much going on here, it may be worth splitting the sentence. Also, attempting…attempted.
 * "Week 4" and "1 yard touchdown" and possibly a few others. Should the numbers be written as words here per MOSNUM or is it a football convention? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Week 4" is a common usage in the NFL. Tonight concludes Week 1 of this NFL season.  I've very rarely seen yards expressed as words in touchdowns and so forth.  Thank you for your review and the support.  I'll work through these, or my conom will.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else think 1960 is a little too far back for background? I hardly think 1960 and 1962 have any relevance to an individual game played in 1968.  I would strike this entirely: "The Jets and Oakland Raiders were founding members of the American Football League; both teams began to play in 1960, the Jets under the name Titans of New York. Both teams had little success in their early years, playing so poorly that both the Titans and Raiders were allowed to draft players from other AFL teams following the 1962 season."  If there were some linkage, like maybe which players were drafted in 1962 who played in this game, maybe it would seem less awkward to me.  Wknight94 talk 20:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the rivalry did not start in earnest until at least 1963. That being said, the language serves the very useful purpose of introducing the reader to the AFL and the two involved teams, which has to be done in some manner.  If we take this out, then some other introductory language is needed.  This is principally to benefit those who come to this article with little knowledge of football; most if not all US football fans know who the Jets and the Raders are, and know of the Heidi game.  Incidentally, the Jets still had three original Titans as late as 1969.  Grantham, Maynard ... the third escapes me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone who comes to the article with no knowledge of football, I have to agree with Wehwalt. I think the background sets the article up very well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Wehwalt, I can understand if the intent is to introduce the reader to a Jets/Raiders rivalry (which I honestly didn't know existed even in 1963), but there is no mention of such a rivalry until the next paragraph. I didn't know there was supposed to be a connection until you mentioned it here.  Maybe just some first sentence about a developing rivalry from 1963?  Or even rename the subsection from "Football" to "Football rivalry"?  (Or, if consensus is that I'm nitpicking too much, then never mind.)  Wknight94 talk 21:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about renaming the subsection "Jets–Raiders rivalry"?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it. Wknight94 talk 21:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

 Comment  (see update below): I peer-reviewed this article some while ago. Most of the issues which I raised at PR have been dealt with satisfactorily, but I still have a few problems with the prose: For example:-
 * "In 2005, TV Guide designated the Heidi game as the sixth (of one-hundred) most unexpected TV moments, interviewing Jennifer Edwards, title star of Heidi: "My gravestone is gonna say, 'She was a great moment in sports.'" This sentence goes awry after the words "unexpected TV moments", losing both its structure and its grammar. The latter part of the sentence needs to be rewritten.
 * It still doesn't read well. You now have two sentences: "In 2005, TV Guide designated the Heidi game as the sixth (of one-hundred) most unexpected TV moments, interviewing Jennifer Edwards, title star of Heidi. According to Edwards, "My gravestone is gonna say, 'She was a great moment in sports.'" The designation by the magazine of sixth most unexpected TV moment, and its interview with Edwards, are separate events, not linked as per your first sentence. I suggest: "In 2005, TV Guide designated the Heidi game as the sixth (of one-hundred) most unexpected TV moments. Interviewed by the magazine, Jennifer Edwards, title star of Heidi, commented: "My gravestone is gonna say, 'She was a great moment in sports.'" Or some such clear separation of the two events. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "While in California, the Jets wrote to Mel Hein, AFL supervisor of officials, complaining that an official had cursed at Hudson, provoking a response which led to Hudson's ejection." Two things here: first, "the Jets wrote" sounds wrong; teams do not write letters. Secondly, two successive clauses beginning with an "...ing" verb is at least one two many
 * "They also showed the sportswriters from the New York papers who were assigned to cover the Jets excerpts from the game films." I had to really struggle to interpret this. It would be much clearer if it was rephrased thus: "They also showed excerpts from the game films to the sportswriters from the New York papers who were assigned to cover the Jets ."
 * "Two weeks later, the Jets defeated the Colts in the Super Bowl. In the Jets' upset victory (the Colts were favored by as many as 19½ points), "the American Football League came of age"." What does "favored by as many as 19½ points" mean? Whose comments is it that the AFL "came of age"?
 * This is a common phrase in American football. It means the betting line for the game was the Colts, minus as many as 19 1/2 points.  In other words, bettors were being called upon to bet that either that the Colts would win by a greater margin, or that they would not (which is what happened, the Colts did not make the line, as they lost the game).  It is properly expressed football lingo.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you've explained it, I understand that this is a case of spread betting; whether this term is used in the US I don't know, but I suggest you employ the link, either directly ("the Colts were favored in the spread betting by as many as 19½ points") or indirectly ("the Colts were favored by as many as 19½ points"). Either form would in my view eliminate the need for any further explanation. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will pipe it. An American sports fan/gambler might understand that the spread on the game was x points, but he'd probably say "line" as the colloquial term.  I know from visits to the UK that it is less common there, that the result is usually bet on.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

My other remaining problem with the article is that in my view the last three paragraphs of the "Football events" section give way to much detail of events which have nothing to do with the Heidi game. For example: "With the Raiders trailing by four points, they attempted one final drive inside the two-minute warning. Lamonica attempted a pass to Smith to the right; the ball sailed over Smith's head and fell to the ground. The play was ruled a lateral, and Jets linebacker Ralph Baker fell on the ball to preserve New York's 27–23 victory." This level of detail for another game entirely does not seem justifiable; I would condense the gist of these three paragraphs into a short and succinct closing statement.
 * Thank you for the review. To a certain extent, the story of the Jets postseason victories is part of the Heidi Game story.  Nevertheless I will shorten it as soon as I review the original sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of the nitpicks and done some shortening. I do not think it a good idea to omit mention of the rematch and of Super Bowl III, as both Namath and Madden mention them, there has to be sufficient text so that they are explained to the reader.  As the players and coaches involved view it as part of the same narrative, well, we don't write the sources.  Even the Raider sources mention the Super Bowl, so it is not Jets partisanship.  However, I've taken it down to the minimum.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The additional nitpicks are done. Thank you for your attention to an article on a sport you do not favour with many clicks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Support: My concerns as expressed above have been adequately covered. I don't find American football articles particularly easy, but they teach me things, so (within reason) I'm generally willing to give them a go. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a media review yet? Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I see. There are only two images.  Both should be routine; one ran on the main page a few days ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure the opening quotation in the Jets-Raiders rivalry section violates the MOS. It's appropriate for a magazine article, but not usually for an encyclopedia. Can that be reformatted so that the section doesn't begin with a quote, and so that a blockquote is not used for less than 3 lines? Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the linkage in this sentence "The two starting quarterbacks combined for 71 pass attempts, and the officials called 19 penalties, leading to many clock stoppages", but I think non-football-savvy readers may not. Can we specify a little more that the clock stops for incomplete passes so that the teams and officials can reset? Karanacs (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly. On the other, it's not a blockquote, it's an epigraph.  I don't see much discussion of epigraphs, but it's a permissible template.  Here is an article that was promoted (in 2006)  with discussion of epigraphs at FAC.  It was recently delisted, but the epigraphs don't seem to have played a role in that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Image review: I believe we can trust Wehwalt and the Hall of Fame employee that the publications, from which File:Heidi Game program.jpg and File:Namath 1965.jpgare derived, do not bear copyright notices (the 1965 Catalog of Copyright Entries also show no registrations for such the Raider-Jets program or Jet Stream). That said, the publications and the contents first published in it did not comply with US copyright formalities then and are now in the public domain. They are "free", although Joe Namath's image is ugly... the artifact blocks suggest this to be a blown-up low-resolution scan. Jappalang (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's what we have ... thanks for the review. As far as I know, there is nothing left undone (three supports, image check done, source review done)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Support I made some extremely minor edits to fix whatever tiny problems I saw. A few comments though:


 * Can we find out a little more about the poll in 1997 that listed the Heidi Game as the most memorable game of all time? I don't dispute the result I would think that it definitely is...its just that only saying "a poll" is vague and kind of odd. I'm just curious as to who was polled, who conducted it etc. I don't have access to the source.
 * See here--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The stuff about Weeb's wife and Johnny Sample's Dad while interesting, seems kind of trivial to me.
 * The Weeb stuff really serves to make the Jets aware of the television snafu. The Sample one, I felt symptomized what did happen, people woke up Monday morning believing the Jets had won and were disabused (or abused) by the morning paper or at the water cooler.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is pedantic but "doffed" is that some kind of fancified British word? Seems needlessly obscure. "A poll" I conducted revealed 0% of American readers have ever heard of the word (I asked my gf if she knew what it meant).
 * Touche. It was a narrow win over "removed", but I guess I will have to go with the runner up.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fancified British word"? What a liberty!!. Next time I see a typical American expression, e.g. "anyways", I shall trash it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You just wait, the next time you use a cricket term in an article, I will hit it for six.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, congratulations it looks like the Jets (and Raiders) have another FA. AaronY (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you and thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – Reviewed this originally at peer review, and just went through and cleaned up a few things. All in all, this is a fine piece of work worthy of the star.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 15:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Image review - the article has only two images and both are no longer under copyright, and so free to use here. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.