Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of American football


 * 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 21:12, 19 September 2007.

History of American football
Currently listed as a Good Article and been through a peer review. The peer review received only one comment, which may mean the article didn't need much help, but probably means that no one cared. I think this is FA ready now. I humbly submit it for your consideration as a Featured Article. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 00:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment/weak oppose Neutral - from the first glance I'd say lead is long, especially third paragraph and I'm not very sure about Table of Contents. From this sentence "From time to time, other rival leagues have come and gone, but today the NFL remains, in terms of television viewers, not only the most popular version of the game, but arguably the most popular sport in the United States.", the word "arguably" doesn't fit plus the sentence is missing reference. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply Per WP:LEAD, a lead should fully summarize an article. The length of the lead is long enough to fully cover each of the major sections of the article, without delving into details.  I have never seen a guideline or a policy or any part of the MOS or WIAFA or any other thing that talks about length, only on completeness.  The lead is adequately complete for doing the job that a lead should do, per WP:LEAD.  The statement you question is referenced as the first reference, read the statement at the start of the article.  However, I can see how such a statement, where it makes a superlative claim, requires specific referencing.  I have add a reference and removed the word "arguably" from the statement.  However, I still disagree on the length of the lead.  It completely summarizes the article, and thus is as long as it needs to be. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)kody schlesner is cool.


 * Well, though I still think lead is bit long, if others will not say anything about it, the objection can be counted as discarded. Good for adding reference to superlative statement, though I had to fix cite template because "title" parameter wasn't specified. For now, though, my stance is neutral. MarkBA t/c/@ 09:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to add another perspective. As someone totally ignorant of football, I found the lead a little short and hard to follow. It made total sense to me after I read the article, but not before. Awadewit | talk  20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment There are some problems with the article:
 * In the lead:
 * First sentence is awkward.
 * Rewrote it, How does it look now? --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * the fact that pro football is the most popular sport is mentioned three times
 * Reduced this to one mention. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * " The popularity of the college game continued to grow" - it hadnt been established in the lead that college football even started to grow, or that there was even such a thing as college football, so to say it "continued to grow" is getting ahead of everybody.
 * rewrote this part.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * " the college game" and "the pro game" should be reworded to "collegiate football" and "professional football", and all instances of the word "pro" being used should probably be lengthened to "professional", at least in the lead
 * Did this. All instances changed as recommended.  I left one statement as professional game to avoid repetitve sentance structure.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph is a little confusing. Though its set up in chronological order, it mentions the NFL, then says when professional football as a whole became popular, then continues on about leagues again, saying there was a rival league called the AFL. It seems to be out of logical order, despite being chronologically ordered. At the very least, it should be clarified what league to which the AFL was a rival, because the topic was changed between the mention of the NFL and the mention of the AFL.
 * Rewrote this a bit to make it clearer --Jayron32| talk | contribs 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * " From time to time, other rival leagues have come and gone" little too informal in tone there :*" regional and national appeal" if it has national appeal it stands to reason it would have regional appeal too. Just say "widespread appeal"
 * " And/or" should be removed
 * Removed the entire sentance, as it was largely repetitive (see above) --Jayron32| talk | contribs 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In "the early years":
 * Fixed --Jayron32| talk | contribs 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * " They played mostly among themselves early on; though they organized a team of non-members..." the semi-colon should be a comma.
 * fixed --Jayron32| talk | contribs 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of simply saying that "the running game" or "the passing game" was invented, spell it out that it was "a rule that allowed players to run the ball forward..." or something like that. People who aren't familiar with American football will read this page and only people somewhat familiar with the sport will know what "the running game" or the "passing game" means. This problem might have to be fixed throughout.
 * The problem is that in the early sources, two versions of football were played. The "running game" is a game (not the running part of the modern football, completely different usage) that resembled rugby, while the "kicking game" resembled soccer.  The "Boston Game" was a hybrid of the two.  As this is pre-Walter Camp, these games bear NO resemblance to modern American football.  This is actually EXPLICITLY explained in the text already.  Could you reread this a little more closely and see if and what needs to be fixed specifically.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, I was confused about that part too. I understand now. I'll strike out the comment. Okiefromokla•talk 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Intercollegiate football:
 * Expansion (1880–1904): the last sentence has the word "is" when it is meant to say "his"
 * fixed --Jayron32| talk | contribs 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Violence and controversy (1905): " 62 schools met in New York City " - Don't start a sentence with numbers. While numbers greater than nine aren't spelled out, any number should be spelled out at the beginning of a sentence.
 * Fixed by reordering the sentance. Is this better? --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Other similar codes of football:
 * Rmv "other" from title - it isnt neccessary and makes it cumbersome
 * done --Jayron32| talk | contribs 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rest of sections:
 * Well, I had it all typed out but then I lost it, so instead of going back through and finding all the problems again, I will just say that in the remainder of the article there are several problems with punctuation, typos and uneeded repetition in the wording of several sentences. If everything else mentioned here is fixed, I wil point these out one by one.


 * Throughout:
 * I toutched on it before, but some of the article seems to be written as if to assume readers know the rules of American football or how it is played. Try to keep the perspective that the reader knows absolutely nothing about American football.
 * Let me take a position counter to this. There are other articles, for example, titled American football where things like rules and the like are explicitly explained.  Every article does not need to contain a complete rehash of information in other articles.  If you think, I could add some "see also" templates at the start of sections that appear confusing, but to have an entire section where the entire rules of American Football are explained to a non-initiated reader kinda defeats the purpose of wikilinking and weights down this article with information belonging elsewhere.  See WP:SUMMARY for the relevent part of the MOS that explains better what I am getting at here.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am just going to strike out the comment; most of it was based on the "running" "passing" and "kicking" game mentions, which, since you explained it above, I see the connection to the other parts of the text where it is explained. Saying the article was "written" like that was overstated anyway. So forget it. Okiefromokla•talk 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS - use Em dashes instead of parentheses to nest phrases. For example: "A rematch was played at Princeton a week later under Princeton rules (one notable difference was the awarding of a "free kick" for any player that caught the ball on the fly)."
 * Past events did happen. Don't say that they would happen. There are many instances of this.
 * 14 instances of the word "many" and a few less of the word "some" - see Avoid weasel words
 * "To this day," - 5 instances of this. Its unencyclopedic, too informal and vague.
 * Picture captions should not have periods if they are not complete sentences. Also, they should have periods if they are complete sentences. There are instances of both problems.
 * Red links
 * No where does it say that a few red links should be objected to. 150 red links may indicate overlinking, but no where in the MOS or in WIAFA or in any other guideline or policy or anywhere does it say that no article should ever have a redlink.  If you see a place where a specific red link is to a topic that should NEVER have a wikipedia article, let me know and I will remove it.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I would never object to the article because of red links (nor would it be within FA guidelines to do so). Just a suggestion to improve overall look. Maybe by removing links to articles that may not be created soon, like A.E. Staley. Also, I think it would be fairly easy to create a small stub for the other two red links, as they appear to be fairly important and need some kind of article anyway. Again, not a requirement, just a suggestion. Okiefromokla•talk 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Overall the article has promise, but as you can see, there are many errors or areas that need to be smoothed out. Okiefromokla•talk 23:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to fix the specific problems you pointed out. It is clear that a copyeditor will need to go through this.  I will call in a few favors and see if someone with a fresh perspective and a good red pen can go over this and fix any stray errors we have missed.  Thanks for your help with this! --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, some copy-editing is still needed, as well as fixes to the issues I didn't cross out yet. I do see much copy-editing has been done already. I'll stop by and read the article over one more time within the next few days and check up on the other fixes, then you can except my support! Great work on the lead too, it's much better. Okiefromokla•talk 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, one more thing. Try to get rid of one sentence paragraphs (I saw one more of these, and it looks like it could be part of a larger paragraph in that section by combining small paragraphs) and also limit the number of two sentence paragraphs unless the small paragraph doesnt fit at all with any other paragraph. Okiefromokla•talk 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - After copy-editing the article and noting that Jayron has addressed issues I brought up on his talk page, I feel confident in the quality of this article. Lara  ♥Love  03:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Object for now, there's still copyediting work to be done and some content issues. "Would" as past tense still exists in the article, and I've found some examples of run-on sentences and weasel words.  In addition, a few things need to be clarified: in "1932 NFL playoff game", how were the rule changes connected to the game itself?  Were they only approved for that game in particular, or did they apply generally and were only adopted that year?  Another thing: nothing is said about high school football.  Not much is needed, necessarily, but a brief section on its development might be helpful.  I don't see the point of discussing rugby at the end of the article (it's relevant only as a parent of football; once that is established there's no need to cover how it continued to develop).  Overall though, a well-done article.  Not much more work to do! --Spangineerws  (háblame)  04:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you just said and I feel the same way. Okiefromokla•talk 04:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has now been extensively copyedited by atleast 3 people who had not previoulsy worked on the article. I have also expanded the modern NFL section, as several people have requested.  I think all objections to the article's quality have now been met.  Could anyone who has objected please re-read the article and see if there are any further objections? --Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm switching to neutral; the prose is much better but I still would prefer to see discussion of high school football and less on rugby at the end. --Spangineerws (háblame)  01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are 3 sentances on rugby at the end of the article, and a few near the beginning as well. I am not sure how to cut that out, and still provide enough historical context. It is not as if the sport of football grew full formed from the head of Walter Camp like Athena from Zeus.  It has historical antecedants, and the article cannot be complete if we ignore them.  I will work on adding a section on High School football as well. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now added a section on youth and high school football. I understand the high school section is rather short.  The big problem is the lack of relevent sources on the history of the sport as it is played in high schools.  While youth football (Pop Warner), college football (NCAA) and pro football (NFL) are all organized into large, monolithic, national organizations, high school football is not.  It is highly decentralized.  The national sanctioning body, the NFHS, does standardize the rules, and I have included as much as I could find on its history, but there is little information about the game at the high school level vis-a-vis important history (first games, how it was organized, etc) such as you find for the 3 other levels of the sport.  While some states do have some excellent resources on the history of the sport in their states (Alabama has a great website, and I found some information on Texas as well) such highly localized histories don't have much place in this article.  We don't need 50 little histories of high school football in each state, and that is all that could be added, since each state's high school football history is likely have developed independantly and unconnected to the others.  Unless you are privy to sources I am not, please understand that I have put literally as MUCH about high school football (on a national level) as can be found.  Please re-read this section, and tell me if this helps make the article more comprehensive. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The other alternative would be to go through and write about all the high school football rivalries over the years and every little thing about H.S. football... but H.S. football didn't really have anything to do with developing the game as far as I know, so that makes its importance less. I am satisfied with what has been put in the new section. Okiefromokla•talk 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, would it be possible to find a ref on the importance of high school football and its growth and popularity so there can be a little info added on that? I mean some high school football games do attract upwards of 40,000 people. Maybe its popularity in small towns and how that came to be. If something like that could be found it would add a lot. Okiefromokla•talk 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I added another paragraph to the section that touches upon the recent history of the growth of HS football; I referenced a USA today article and the book Friday Night Lights, the landmark study of the trend. Does this help some?--Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah its good enough for me. I already supported the article anyway lol. I did some general copy editing but other than that it's alright with me. Good job. Okiefromokla•talk 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment'.
 * "Prep school" links to a disambigation page.
 * "Camp's new scrimmage rules revolutionized the game, though not always for the better." "Better" is POV. I think what you mean is "the way he intended".
 * "Camp became a fixture at the Massasoit House "conventions" where rules were debated and changed." Why is "conventions" in quotation marks?--Carabinieri 21:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I have made all 3 fixes: Prep School now links to the appropriate article, better has been rephrased to "as intended", and the quote marks have been removed. Any more fixes needed?  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  02:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's all I got.--Carabinieri 05:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support (Full disclosure: I have copy edited this page.) This page is well-written, informative, well-researched, and, to the best of my knowledge, comprehensive. I think that the additions made to the modern NFL section are excellent; we shouldn't, I think, demand too much there, since this is a page on the history of football, not on the history of the NFL or on the NFL. As I know very little about football, I learned a lot reading this page; it was also easy for a layperson like myself to follow. Nice work.
 * My only complaint is that the first sentence of the lead has been reverted to its ungrammatical self. I have discussed the problem on the talk page. Awadewit | talk  17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This problem was part of a spate of vandalism today (see the page history). It has been reverted. Could you please reread the article and check this? --Jayron32| talk | contribs  20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah! The newly restored lead is much better. I think that this is a good example of why we need the "viewable" version of pages, particularly FAs, that was being discussed. Awadewit | talk  23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I noticed there are still the many, many uses of the word "would" when describing past events. I hate to be anal retentive about that (lol)... Do the editors object to removing the "would"s? Okiefromokla•talk 05:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just not sure what your problem with the "would's" is exactly. I just did a quick check of all of them and about half of them look like the conditional to me (which would be difficult to change) and the other half look like the future (to put it simply). One could of course say that all of the future tenses should be past tenses, but from the context of the article, it could go either way. In a sentence situated in 1945, something that happens in 1946 is in the future, but still in the past to us, so would is appropriate. One can use the past tense there, but it is not required; that seems like a personal stylistic choice to me. Perhaps you know of a grammatical reason why those would's cannot be there? Awadewit | talk  06:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's better writing - more consistent. Most of the article has the tone that events did happen (which is how it all needs to be), but when some parts of the article say something "would" happen, it makes it inconsistent. The best possible and most definitive wording should be used, as such is the goal for a featured article. We're looking for great prose. Okiefromokla•talk 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. (disclosure: I made the sole peer review comments) Karanacs 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - A few reamining problems: instances of saying past events "would" happen makes the article less definitive and inconsistent with the prevailing tone that past events did happen, which is how the entire article should be written. (see discussion above) ... also see Avoid weasel words. I have a looser interpretation of this guideline than some editors but the article has quite a few instances where the word "many" and "some" can and should be removed for more definitive, better writing. Examples: "...most notably the many rule changes instituted by Walter Camp..." the "many" there doesn't add anything to the sentence. Remove it. "Although many observers held suspicions," ... same reason; and if you cant specify how many observers, simply removing "many" says that there were observers, which I don't see a problem with... I did notice just a couple instances in the article where the word "many" wasn't totally inappropriate, but there are editors who might object to them anyway. Sorry if I sound nit-picky, I just want to make sure the article is top-notch. Okiefromokla•talk 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * reply I have sanitized the words "would" and "many" from the article. The word "would" does not appear at all, and the word "many" now only appears in one instance, the title of an article I am using as a ref, and thus cannot remove it.  Can you see anything else I need to fix?  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Well, I've put in my 2 cents and the changes have been completed. Article looks good. Okiefromokla•talk 20:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.