Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Tatum/archive1

Jack Tatum
Self-Nom I been working in this article and expanded it gravely, added refs, etc in the last few days. Tatum is considered as one of the best safeties of all-time. Note that no one commented in the peer review and also that I basiclly ran out of information to put so the article is a bit small, 15-20 KB max so I will use this as a kind of peer review as well. Hopefully this article gets promoted to FA. I don't think that size is a critera also Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 18:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I just got under 10k for the total length. Maybe a little bit about early life would be good, not to be trite or anything but it is kind of useful to just have a blurb. Also a bit more about opinions of sportswriters and other observers on him, fan opinions, etc. All of this could be useful if done in a non-POV manner with citations. Not really much to peer review though since it seems like a stellar job has been done with the citations so far, I couldn't find any POV claims that didn't have a source. I want to support, but I feel like it is just a bit short of truly covering all the bases. --W.marsh 19:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Jaranda and others have adressed some of my concerns, and other improvements have been made. Still needs a bit about fan and commentator's opinions of him but we were both having trouble finding any good sources, so it's not like there isn't effort being made. --W.marsh 21:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't know anything about FAC's but, um... I kinda helped on this one. — Apr. 2, '06 [21:08] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>
 * Support. I also don't know too much about FAC's, but I also helped out, and in my biased opinion, it looks good.--Shanel 03:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You waited less than a day for a response on Peer review before posting here, saying 'no one commented' is simply not fair. Anyway, object - I simply don't believe that the article is comprehensive. It's pretty shiny as it is at the moment, I just don't think you've done adequate research, google alone isn't good enough. As a whistlestop tour of the guy's sports career it seems fine, though at times somewhat non sequitur. --zippedmartin 07:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I placed it in FAC before anyone commented in it, honestly I checked 100 pages though google and his first 2 books are impossible to get and I checked amazon and the local libary and the third book is too expensive for my tastes and not in the library nither. This is as comprehensive as it can possibly be and I done as much research possible. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. This article looks good. Let's get another person to copyedit. I went through and fixed a few grammatical errors and put periods at the end of the sentences (they were usually after the reference tags). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfuadam (talk • contribs)
 * First, an object. Article is a Cliff's Note version of his life -- nice but incomplete.
 * The college section, for example, explains all the awards he won but doesn't say why he won a single award. Why was he Player of the Year?  What made him so special to be All-American?  He won the awards, but no explanation as to what made him better than his teammates.
 * The article needs a copyedit. I found sentences without periods (i.e., the last paragraph of "College Career" and the second paragraph of NFL career) and other grammar mistakes regarding punctuation.
 * The article summarizes too much in a single sentence. Like, "In 1997, Tatum asked the National Football League Player's Association if they could give him a catastrophic injury pension for having to live though the Stingley incident but the league declined".  Why?  Also, the quote right before it from Tatum needs to be referenced -- there's no source for it.
 * There should be dates for his books. The article only lists the first date.
 * Also, in regards to Zippedmartin's comment, I agree that more research is needed. A visit to the library should be able to locate his three books even if they have to order it from another branch.  They should possibly even have Sports Illustrated's from the 1970s.  There are also Sports and Football Encyclopedia's which should at least have an article about him.
 * Finally, a Comment You put the peer review up in the morning of April 2, and had it on here that evening stating no one responded yet to the peer review?  Normally, a peer review could take, at a minimum, a week for a proper set of responses.  Although it's probably an honest mistake, peer reviews can be very helpful, and you shouldn't overlook this option in the future.--Ataricodfish 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I added some info to the college section, I don't know if that is what you wanted
 * 2) I'm not a good copyeditior and asking for help in that section
 * 3) Done and the quote is from the same ref, the 13th ref, don't know how to add the same extrnal link as a refenence to a article.
 * 4) Book dates done
 * 5) Same problem, first two books are in no libarys in the Miami-Dade area as I checked the main frame computer that list and the third book is in two librarys that are too far from my house. I could get the first book and third books in amazon but it's selling too high for me especially the second one which is in the 50 dollar range. Football encyclopedias normally have a paragraph or two on the player max and I don't think thats any help, and there is one known sports illustrated cover with Tatum on it but the problem is where to find it as magazines from that area is hard to get. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 01:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs a copy-edit. Try consistently spelling out numbers less than 10. Doesn't look comprehensive to me. Tony 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC) PS Excellent use of piped links for simple years; this are rare examples of useful (i.e., focused) chronological links.
 * Object: Image copyright status seems to be a mess. The fair use rationale for the second pic is virtually just a "this is why we need a fair use pic" rather than "this is why fair use applies" - there is a distinction. Wikipedia certainly doesn't just grab images off BBC or CNN news to illustrate news stories, yet the same rationale as given here would equally "justify" using "borrowed" BBC photos. The first pic is way off - it's not obviously a promo pic from a press pack, it's far more likely to be a commercial autographed print, especially given the source information (which doesn't list the copyrighter, which it should, but instead lists it as a defunct "product" on a website). TheGrappler 03:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The first image I did not do myself but that's the most common image of Tatum outthere, and there are no PD or free use images of Jack Tatum out-there, so it qualifies for fair-use on that basic. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's not always the case there is a fair use image. Sometimes an article has to make do without an image. Just because an image is common, doesn't make it fair use, even in the absence of other images. It may be an iconic image, but even then, its use should be restricted to critical commentary on the image, not as a sneaky way of finding an image to illustrate the subject. TheGrappler 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Object -- Too short to be encyclopedic, does not cover subject's entire life, does not sufficiently place accomplishments in broader context (other players, etc), contains too many references to autobiographical material by player and/or team, and needs copyediting due to several grammar errors. -- Gnetwerker 02:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the maximum length that the article can be created, and if contains too many references to autobiographical material by player/team comment is just silly, without it it will be a small stub and it is valid info --Jaranda wat's sup 02:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)