Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the New York Jets/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 not promoted by Laser brain 15:28, 1 December 2010.

History of the New York Jets

 * Nominator(s):The Writer 2.0 (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This nomination is withdrawn for consultation, most likely a peer review, and possible discussion about the permissible level of idiom in sports-related articles. To avoid possible disruption, it probably won't be back until the Jets complete their current season, so with luck that will postpone its return to February. I don't entirely agree with all the comments, but this is a community-based process, and the community has spoken and I respect that. Any delegate, including Andy who reviewed it, should feel free to archive it on the next runthrough.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...We believe it meets the criteria. The Jets are a franchise with a long, mostly tragic history, but with a moment of glory, that as the sportswriter who chronicled their history points out, has frozen them in a moment that will not change until they reach another such moment. In the meantime, and as they try yet again to match the glory of the Namath era, we can appreciate the depths of despair that they so often have sunk to, that we hope will make the moment of glory, should we live so long, all the sweeter. It has passed GA and been worked over extensively. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest title change to New York Jests&mdash;this coming from someone who brought the Patriots article to FA nearly 5 years ago, before it basically fell downhill. In all seriousness, I'll try to get a look at this during the weekend. If Tony, Andy, etc. get to this before me, then all the better. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Source comments – Yes, this is FAC's resident fan of the other New York (New Jersey?) NFL franchise. I saw the article and, despite my Giants leanings, quickly took an interest in it. After making some small, mostly dash-related fixes, I've taken a look at the sources for you and came up with the following comments. Most of them are relatively simple, but the last few have me somewhat concerned, the last one in particular. *Reference 90 (on the Mud Bowl) doesn't say anything about Don Shula not placing a tarp on the field, or about the effect of the weather on the Jets. These are the exact facts this citation is supposed to support. Why doesn't it?  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * References 20, 38, 40, 41, 90, 91, 114, 115, 116, 119, 137, 138, 140, 143, 144, 147, and 152 all need publishers to be included.
 * Ref 150 is in all caps, which the Manual of Style says is a no-no.
 * Ref 35 gives the page number as pp. 62. For single-page cites, they should be in the form p. 62, like the other similar ones in this article. Fortunately, this is an easy fix; just drop the one letter and you're done.
 * Ref 164 looks like an archived version of a story from the Colorado Springs Gazette. The newspaper name isn't given in the citation. I'm thinking it should be, as the work.
 * The references generally look to be reliable. Many come from books, with most of the others from major newspapers. The only question I would have is whether people think the Huffington Post is reliable. It seems like more of a political site, and I'm not familiar with how reliable it's considered in Wiki terms. In any event, it's only citing a game result, which isn't too controversial.
 * There are 34 references to the team's website. That may not be overwhelming in an article with almost 200 cites, but it is a decent amount of primary sources. Worth noting for the sake of other reviewers.
 * This is simply too close to the source: "Joe Namath announced his retirement from pro football following a dispute with the NFL over his ownership of the Manhattan bar Bachelors III". From the source: "Namath announced his retirement from pro football in a dispute with the NFL over his ownership of a Manhattan bar, Bachelors III".
 * Reference 76 doesn't say anything about Namath signing with the Rams. Also, I don't see anything on Richard Todd or Matt Robinson, who are mentioned in the article.
 * I've taken care of the citation concerns; the publishers will be added. I'm sorry, I goofed on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To expand on it: the problem seems to have been with the "Year in Review" Jets pages.  I have now gone through them in detail, and we should be good to go there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm happy to see that an effort has been made to fix up the source issues. I finally got a chance to read some of the article and came up with a few prose concerns:
 * I believe the MoS discourages links that are bolded, like the one in the intro.
 * Tenses conflict here: "posting their first winning record in 1967 before winning its only American Football League championship in 1968." Either "their" or "its" should be exclusively used, not both.
 * Minor, but the Orange Bowl link goes to the game, not the stadium of the same name. The link you're looking for is at Miami Orange Bowl.
 * Organization and first season: I'm pretty sure the hyphen in the middle of "highly-successful" doesn't need to be there.
 * Grammar fix needed here: "as the team sought to fill its the 35-man roster."
 * Super Bowl III: "Namath alleged that there five AFL quarterbacks better than Colts quarterback Earl Morrall". Missing "were".
 * Decline, Namath departs: "completing 15 of 28 passes for 49 yards and six touchdowns." That's an average of about three yards per catch, which can't be right. In fact, I recall hearing that Namath threw for 400-something yards in this game (don't know the exact number off the top of my head).
 * "but for Bills running back O. J. Simpson's attempt to become the first NFL players to rush for 2,000 yards in a season." "players" → "player".
 * "and former Cardinals coach Charley Winner. Winner...". This is a repeat in the form of a comment below.
 * Not sure if "behind a decrepid offensive line" sets the proper tone. I can handle "blowing a lead" and such (as a sports fan), but this is a bit much.
 * I'm going to stop here, but this is a lot of issues for this stage, several of which are simple things that further copy-editing before FAC would have taken care of. I can certainly see where the reviewer below me is coming from. If you don't mind, I think I'll go through the rest myself as time permits. I may not be the best at fully reconstructing sentences, but I can wipe out whatever little issues like these that remain.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be grateful for whatever assistance you could give.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have by the way made the changes you mention. I should add that I am reluctant to change phrases like "blew a lead", I could probably come up with a formal way of saying it, but this is a sports article and some jargon is not going to be a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's one last thing I wanted to add, which I should have picked up on when I was doing some cleanup work on the article: the reference publishers that are not printed publications shouldn't be italicized. This covers the references to the Jets' website, along with the Pro Football Hall of Fame and ESPN, among others. More important issues than this one exist, but it's something to consider for the future.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I didn't see the withdrawal message until after I wrote the above.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not feel criterion 1a has been satisfied yet. Here are spot checks from the first few paragraphs; these concerns, nitpicks, and grammatical errors show that we need a series of copy-edits by multiple users unfamiliar to the text.
 * In January 1965, the Jets were able to sign University of Alabama quarterback Joe Namath to a then-record contract. "were able to" can be omitted, as long as "sign" is replaced with "signed". The impressive feat is best left clarified in the appropriate section, not as a redundant phrase in the lead.
 * The Jets beat the Colts in the game, establishing the AFL as an equal to the senior football league.&mdash;just my opinion, but I think "as an equal to" should be replaced with something like "as a legitimate competitor to", something along those lines".
 * After the two leagues's merger became effective in 1970&mdash;I believe the more common style on Wikipedia is "leagues'". "Became effective" is redundant.
 * The following year, the Jets hired two-time Super Bowl winning coach Bill Parcells. Parcells...&mdash;Repeat words like that are usually frowned upon here.
 * The team would enjoy enjoyed their most successful decade in franchise history between 2000 and 2009...&mdash;"in franchise history" is technically redundant, but in this case I think it helps the flow and power of the sentence.
 * In 1959, young oilmen Lamar Hunt and Bud Adams sought a National Football League franchise. They found that there was little likelihood of convincing the NFL to expand (which required a unanimous vote of team owners)&mdash;the content in the parenthesis seems relevant enough to be included in the sentence proper. Comma, transition, and tense change would do the trick.
 * and mentioned the names of a number of other wealthy bidders seeking to acquire the Cardinals.&mdash;especially redundant in this already lengthy sentence.
 * ''...the oilmen realized that if so many wealthy people were seeking an NFL franchise, the time was right to start a rival professional football league."&mdash;there are several ways to restructure this sentence; in its current state, I feel that it's not as fluid and logical as it could be.
 * Shea suggested Harry Wismer, a minority shareholder in both the Washington Redskins and Detroit Lions as a...&mdash;missing comma after "Lions".
 * Same with the word "Marshall" in the next sentence.
 * I'm also a little iffy about using informal terms such as "well-to-do" and "blowing/blow/blew a lead", but that's mostly just preference.
 * These examples from the first 5-6 paragraphs demonstrate a need for further copy-editing. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'll see to it that is done. Give me a day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a comment, I see no alternative to using some football parlance which may come across as informal, due to the nature of this article, and that includes "blowing" a lead. Perhaps one would not use it in a political biography, but in a historical football article, especially one about the Jets, it very much has its place.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose Oppose - three non-free images, not even a hint as to why they are used! Fasach Nua (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added fair use rationales.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't magically make it ok. What are they adding? There's no kind of automatic entitlement for every article about a club to have the logo, the helmet and the kit. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The fair use rationales are on the image pages, if there is objection, I will simply strike the infobox. The article didn't used to have one, so no biggie.  I tried taking the images out of the infobox, but that leads to problems with the parameters I can't cure.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe, upon study, that the fair use rationales are insufficient, as the logo in a helmet is not going to help anyone understand the subject matter. Thus, I have stricken the images in question.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any response from Fasach Nua on this issue? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, and I've dropped a note on his talk page. FN often takes a bit of time to revisit issues, I'm just afraid the oppose is turning off possible reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:FA Criteria 3 met with those images removed Fasach Nua (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Improvements are definitely being made&mdash;not sure if I'm ready to support yet, but maybe I'll get some time to go through myself. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hope you will.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose From a glance, I can see that the writing is still unimpressive in a lot of places and I'm worried about the coverage in certain areas. I'm gonna stop at this point. I think this article probably needs an independent copy-editing. Maybe if I have time I can help out later but I'm not Cormac McCarthy myself tbh. AaronY (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a couple instances of awkward use f the "would be" construction. In some cases its accurate and acceptable, in some cases it should just be "was" and "were".
 * "A 10–1 start in 1986 was wasted as the injury-plagued Jets lost their last five regular season games, eventually blowing a ten-point fourth quarter lead and losing in double overtime to the Cleveland Browns in the playoffs." This sounds like it was written from a fan's perspective, and "wasted" and "blowing" is not formal, encyclopedic language.
 * "The team enjoyed their most successful decade in franchise history between 2000 and 2009, appearing five times in the playoffs. In 2009, after an indifferent regular season in which their own coach, Rex Ryan, ruled them out of playoff contention, they won in the final game of the regular season and advanced to the playoffs." I find this awkward too. I think "in the 2000s" is less awkward of a way to delineate a decade than "between 2000 and 2009". That would be like saying that flappers were an integral part of the most raucous decade of the first half the the century; the roaring "between 1920 and 1929" years. I understand you may be apprehensive that someone would think you're referring to the 21st century, but once you put decade into the sentence, I think you're fine. Also what exactly is an "indifferent season" I'm an avid sports fan and I've never heard that term used nor know what it means. Are you saying the players were indifferent, in other words they were not playing hard? Or the fans were indifferent, in that they didn't care about the team? "Uneven" would probably just be better. Also I would think the "five times" would be better after "in the playoffs".
 * "Wismer, while well-to-do, was not nearly as rich as the other potential team owners." This would be stronger and more formal if you just wrote "Wismer, while wealthy, was not as rich as the other potential team owners." At a quick glance I see a couple of other instances of needless adverbs. "In 1988, the Sack Exchange era effectively ended as Klecko failed his offseason physical and was waived, linebacker Lance Mehl announced his retirement during training camp, and Gastineau retired midseason, citing personal reasons." "The Jets attempted to trade him, but were unsuccessful. As a result on May 12, 1977, they simply cut him from the roster." There's more than just those examples.
 * "November 24, 1959, the AFL held its first draft, with the newly named "Titans of New York" selecting" This one might be just me but "newly named" bothers me. It sounds like they already had a name and then got a new name. I think the quotes establish that the name is new, if the franchise is new then of course the name will be new as well.
 * "Racked by injuries, the Jets lost their final five regular season game, but still made the playoffs.[101] In the wild card playoff game against the Chiefs, the Jets started Ryan at quarterback, and won 35–15." Besides the minor problem of the missing s in this passage, you've already mentioned that Ryan is a quarterback in this section, so saying he started "at quarterback" is redundant. If he started a game at nose tackle then mentioning the position he started at would be necessary.
 * "Steinberg eventually hired Bengals offensive coordinator Bruce Coslet as the team's head coach." "Instead" would be better than "especially" in the context of this paragraph.
 * "He set Parcells free from the Patriots; the Jets gave the Patriots four draft picks, with the only first round selection given up to be in 1999." The last part of that sentence is awkward.
 * "Parcells, who was never fully confident of O'Donnell, benched him in favor of personal favorite Ray Lucas after O'Donnell threw an early interception in a low-scoring game." Awkward as well, I would go with "Parcells, who never had full confidence in O'Donnell, benched him in favor of personal favorite Ray Lucas after O'Donnell threw an early interception in a low-scoring game." That's still a little awkward. "personal favorite" is pretty weird as well, and "an early interception in a low-scoring game" might be better with specifics, for instance: "after O'Donnell threw an interception in the first quarter of a tied game versus the Panthers" for example. Mentioning the score might be unnecessary: "after O'Donnell threw an interception in the first quarter of a game versus the Panthers"
 * I think "rest of the season" or "rest of the year" would be more formal than "rest of the way" which I see used a lot.
 * Please feel free to make any changes that you think are advisable. I will look for a copyeditor, but if you would like to do it, that is good too.  I think your comments are about the tension in this article between football lingo and formal language.  Reasonable minds could disagree about where the line should be drawn.  Regarding the Ryan, I have switched that to "replaced O'Brien with Ryan".  Ryan has been mentioned only once, there is another Ryan in the article (current coach Rex) who has been mentioned in the lede, and I feel the reader needs some reinforcement of who Ryan is.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You also say you are worried about coverage. Are you worried about something other than prose?  I would not think comprehensiveness would be a concern in such a lengthy article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I must concur with my colleagues that it is not up to scratch yet, but definitely workable with a firm hand. Some areas are fine, but some seem to suffer from lack of attention. I often start reviewing from the bottom for this reason, and I found some of the nether sections less than spectacular. Random pot-shots:
 * Return to Respectability? More than a little subjective.
 * "For his success in leading the Jets to the playoffs, Mangini received the nickname "Mangenius" and a cameo appearance on The Sopranos." Well, this sentence draws a causal relationship between the playoff appearance and his cameo on The Sopranos. Reading the source, none is stated or implied.
 * "The victory, with other results, put the Jets's fate in their own hands" Unsure what middle clause is doing. I'm assuming you mean "the victory plus the other stuff they did leading up to it" but that goes without saying, I think, and this is inelegant.
 * "The Jets played the Bengals again in the playoffs" Here begins a series of sentences that all begin with "The Jets", the first two of which could be combined in my opinion. There isn't much variety to the writing here.
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Section titles are a problem here. I am open to suggestions.  Some time periods suggest themselves, for example the Namath years, some are necessarily arbitrary.  I have changed the specific things that LB mentions and appealed for a copyedit from outside.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have agreed to copyedit this, in the hopes that an improvement in the prose might turn the opposes. It's a long article so this will take a little time and I hope the delegate will stay their hand.. It is a question of "prose only" as I am not at all knowledgeable in American football. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fine. Thank you for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After further discussion the request for a ce has been withdrawn, so I won't be doing this after all. As Graham suggests below, it might in any event be better if someone with topic knowledge does the deed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)*Oppose - sorry. As some of you already know, my knowledge of American Football doesn't exist. But I thought I could bring an outsider's viewpoint to the discussion and that this might be useful. Reading the article was hard work. I think the prose suffers from unnecessary colloquialisms, which prevent its reaching FA standard. Some examples from the Lead include, "the Jets made the playoffs" – I assume this means the Jets reached the playoff stage of the competition. And does "blowing a ten-point fourth quarter lead" mean "despite having achieved.."? Here should "losing" mean "but lost" or better "were defeated": They reached the AFC Championship Game in 1982, losing on a rain-soaked Orange Bowl field to the Miami Dolphins. This is odd, "after an indifferent regular season" - what is meant by "indifferent"? Is there redundancy here "After the merger became effective in 1970," - if not, why is "became effective" used? Last, I see a lot of "winning" in the first paragraph. I think the article would benefit from another, thorough copy-edit by someone who understands this mysterious game. Graham Colm (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


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