Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Packers sweep/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2018.

Packers sweep

 * Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 16:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The Green Bay Packers of the 1960s were one of the most dominant teams in the history of professional football. Under coach Vince Lombardi the Packers won five NFL Championships in seven years–including the first two Super Bowls. Thirteen Packers who played for Lombardi were later elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, with Lombardi entering shortly after his death in 1970. Much of this success can be traced to the philosophy of Vince Lombardi: teamwork, hard work, and the pursuit of excellence. Nothing better exemplifies these traits than the Packers sweep: a power running play that Lombardi's Packers perfected.

As this is my first WP:FAC, I was cautious to make sure this article was properly reviewed before the nomination. The article was first reviewed during its DYK nomination and time on the Main Page. It was then reviewed by The Guild of Copyeditors before its subsequent GA review. Finally, it was reviewed by a WP:FAC mentor to make sure nothing else had been missed. Thank you to, , , , and others for their assistance.

Thank you for taking the time to review the article at WP:FAC. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 16:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Clikity

 * "The basic tenets of the Packers sweep are derived from the power sweep, a play developed before its use by the Packers" Tenet means a belief or principle. I also think it needs to be reworded." How about "The Packers sweep is based on the sweep, a football play that involves a back taking a handoff and running parallel to the line of scrimmage before turning upfield behind lead blockers."
 * Thanks, I made the suggested change here. Note I changed the "Packers sweep" that starts the next sentence to "The play" to avoid repeating "the Packers sweep" three times in a row. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 13:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Tony seems to have fixed the little issues with the prose. The citations and sources look good, so I think you're good to go when the image review ends. A good read. Clikity (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Vince_lombardi_bart_starr.jpg: looks like the source link is dead - when and where was this image first published? Same with File:Jim_Taylor_1967.JPG
 * File:Packers_sweep_diagram.svg: can you say more about the source for this image and what makes it reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a new version of File:Vince_lombardi_bart_starr.jpg using this version as the source. Note I archived it here and included that link on the Commons description page so that this issue does not happen again. Let me know if this satisfies your concerns.
 * I replaced File:Jim_Taylor_1967.JPG with File:Taylor 1961 Topps.jpg. Let me know if this is satisfactory to you.
 * File:Packers_sweep_diagram.svg was created by me using Method Draw. Although I based the graphic on an image I found online, I have change the source on the description page to one that is more reliable and is included in the article that still is consistent with the diagram I created. I also believe that the article and numerous sources support the reliability of the diagram. Let me know if this satisfies your concerns. Thanks for the review . « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 05:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Fine with the latter two - for the first, would still like to know publication date, don't see that at given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I will continue to search for said publication date, but as of now I have been unable to locate it. It appears to be from the same series of photos from other Packers (see File:Bart starr bw.jpg, for example). Not an expert on photos by any means, so any advice would be appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 13:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like it has been published elsewhere (eg) - these may have more details. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , the book you linked was published in 2017 and uses that picture as the e-book cover. My guess is that the author pulled that photo from the web, and most likely does not own a copyright on the photo. Have you found it anywhere else? All of my searching has come up empty. My best guess is that is was taken by Vernon Biever or a similar Packers photographer, but that is just a guess. Lombardi coached the Packers from 1959 to 1967, and he passed away in 1970. So we can reliably conclude that the range listed on the description page is correct. If we are unable to get the exact date or year, will the range suffice? « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 21:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue is not when the image was created, but when it was published, as that's what is typically used to determine copyright in the US. If you haven't yet, you could try a reverse image search? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did try a reverse image search, among other things. Still no luck. Let me know how best to proceed. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In that case you may need to remove the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been removed. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 13:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , note that I have added two photos to the article to replace the one I removed. They are File:Jerry Kramer Topps 1959.jpg and File:Fuzzy Thurston (1).jpg. They are Topps trading cards and similarly licensed as the two other photos in the article. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1
1a Support: well-written indeed.
 * "He played football at Fordham University, on a football scholarship,[5] and was part of the "Seven Blocks of Granite", a nickname for the team's offensive line." Bumpy commas. Do we need the one after "University"?
 * Removed the comma after "University". « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "where he continued to develop a better understanding of the sweep, especially pulling offensive linemen and having the ball carriers cut-back towards openings in the line". Just a suggestion: "especially the techniques of"?
 * Good suggestion, done. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd dump the comma after "seasons", but wouldn't complain if you wanted to retain it. But the one after "West Point"? "Blaik's emphasis on players executing their job and the military discipline of West Point, greatly influenced Lombardi's future coaching style." Looks like an error that crept in when the -ing grammar was changed.
 * Removed the comma after seasons and West Point. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Rather long sentence: "He positioned his lineman with greater space between each other,[9] had offensive tackles pull from the line and implemented an early variant of zone blocking (blockers are expected to block a "zone" instead of an individual defender), which required the ball carrier to run the football wherever there was space.[8]" Again, only a suggestion: "... defender); this required".
 * Good suggestions. Changed. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Under his offensive leadership, assisted by his defensive counterpart Tom Landry, Lombardi helped guide the Giants to an NFL Championship in 1956." Consider this: "Under his offensive leadership and assisted by his defensive counterpart Tom Landry, Lombardi helped guide the Giants to an NFL Championship in 1956."
 * Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Even though the Packers had not been successful for years, Lombardi inherited a team with five future Pro Football Hall of Famers." Query: this only unfolded later, right? It was not easy to predict at the time. If so, you might imply that in the wording: "inherited a team in which five players would go on to be", or something like that.
 * Agreed, fixed. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Here, you use a serial comma, which I very much like: "He immediately instituted a rigorous training routine, implemented a strict code of conduct, and demanded the team continually strive for perfection in everything they did." Why not in the sentence I quote in the fourth point, above?
 * Went back and made sure the Oxford comma is used throughout. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd hyphenate just here to avoid the meaning of "primary ball". Non-experts will wonder. "primary ball-carrier"
 * Added the hyphen. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Why the hyphen? "The center had to cut-off the defensive tackle".
 * Slipped in. A "cut-off block" is usually hyphenated, but in this use it definitely shouldn't be. Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You do need a comma here: "This was due to the right guard (when the play was run to the right side of the field) who would vacate this space while pulling to lead the ball carrier."
 * Added comma. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "whether to push the play to the outside or to the inside of the tight end"
 * Removed. I also reordered because "inside or outside" sounds better than "outside or inside". « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Perfect use of marked theme (unusual initial positioning): "For nine seasons Lombardi ran the Packers sweep with great success." Unmarked would have "for nine seasons" at the end. Nice.
 * Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Same issue as two up: "Lombardi would either attack other weaknesses, or would run variations of the sweep" -> "Lombardi would either attack other weaknesses or run variations of the sweep"
 * Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Why the first comma, when the rest is a nest of seething commas? "At times, he would change the play to go to the left side, have various blockers not pull, switch the ball carrier or direction of the run, or have option pass plays, each of which could be run out the sweep formation." You don't use interrupting dashes—why not??? "plays—each of which" would be an improvement. The formulaic comma after short initial time/adverbial/prepositional phrase ... please question each use: "Throughout his tenure Lombardi ...". And you do need a comma before "who" (several of these I've commented on).
 * Removed the first comma. Not good comma usage. Added a dash per your recommendation (I have to admit, I am a dash noob). I checked all the remaining instances of "who" and I believe they all are fixed. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Bumpy and awkward: "Starr, who as the quarterback orchestrated the play, and Taylor, were essential to variations of the sweep that called for different runners or option pass plays." -> "Both Starr (who as the quarterback orchestrated the play) and Taylor were essential to variations of the sweep that called for different runners or option pass plays."
 * Adjusted per your recommendation. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Just for comparison, the first comma here is good. Why? "In addition to the Hall of Famers, Lombardi's teams included"
 * Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In response Lombardi would ...
 * Removed the comma. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Serial comma missing in one place, not in the other: "The team won three straight championships in 1965, 1966 and 1967—only the second team to accomplish this feat (the other being the 1929, 1930, and 1931 Packers)." See the dash I've used instead of your comma? It marks an afterthought here.
 * Dashed! « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Never love the noun-plus-ing: "This dominance and continued success has led to the Packers sweep being called one of the most famous football plays in history." -> "This dominance and continued success has led to the Packers sweep's reputation as one of the most famous football plays in history."?
 * Agreed, reworded per your suggestion. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Good. Minor adjustments to writing style, and please write more articles! Love the technical depth. And memo to FAC more generally: my comments concern the whole article text, not just the lead and a bit more. Tony (talk)  02:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words and review ! I believe I have addressed all of your comments above (diff). Sorry, for, all, of, my, comma-related, issues. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope to write my first writing tutorial page since the year dot, entitled Comma workshop. It's the biggest issue I'm finding at FAC more broadly—more than in the academic text I edit. I don't know why. Best. Tony (talk)  06:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support on prose and (tentatively) comprehensiveness (I am no expert on American football so will leave that to the experts. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments – While the article is on the short side for an FAC candidate, it does appear to comprehensively cover the subject. I didn't review the sourcing in detail, but it appears high-quality at a glance. I just have a handful of comments, with only a couple that I would call significant.


 * I don't see much support for the final sentence of the lead in the body of the article. There's nothing that I can see about Lombardi, or coaches/commentators, identifying this as an element of success. The content in the relevant section is actually more direct than the lead in making this point. Since the sentence isn't supported at the moment, either relevant content should be added to that section backing the sentence or it should be rewritten to better reflect the body.
 * I reworked the lead. Let me know what you think . « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 10:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The sweep: I was under the impression that we usually used one word for "half back", not two. That's how our article presents it, at least.
 * I feel silly on this one. You are correct: Halfback (American football). All fixed. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Lombardi era: Minor point, but the links for guard and center could be moved up to the previous section, since the terms both appear there.
 * Moved both links up. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The second link to Pro Football Hall of Fame in this section is a duplicate and therefore not necessary.
 * Removed second link. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Legacy: "Lombardi and his sweep led the Packers to five NFL championships (including Super Bowls I and II)." This is somewhat misleading because the first several Super Bowls were held after the NFL Championship Game (indeed, the Baltimore Colts and Minnesota Vikings won the next two NFL championships, but each lost in the Super Bowl). A rewording here and the lead is in order, because it sounds like the Super Bowls were the NFL championship games back then when that isn't the case. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reworded using "as well as". Thanks for the review . I believe I have responded to and addressed all of your comments. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – That does it for my comments. A nice little article which deserves the star, assuming the source review turns up no problems. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review and spot check by Amakuru

 * Formatting looks good. Consistently uses sfn for refs where multiple page numbers are used and direct cites for others.
 * Date format is consistently "Month Day, Year"
 * David Maraniss (When Pride Still Mattered: A Life of Vince Lombardi) - is it really useful to have a link to a section on a page which just mentions the book's title only?
 * The only reason I included them is that they both are redirects with possibilities, so if someone (maybe me) someday writes an article on either book, they would already be linked. It doesn't bother me either way, so let me know how best to proceed. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Run to Daylight - ditto.
 * Ref links:
 * All links, including archive links, are active
 * Ref 24 has a title "Pro Football Hall of Famers by Team" but the actual title on the page is "Hall of Famers by Franchise"
 * Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 26 - title is "NFL Champions 1920-2015" (year range isn't included in the cite)
 * Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bibliography: Two books have a location, two do not.
 * Fixed. Green Bay Packers: The Complete Illustrated History - Third Edition does not provide a publisher location via the Google Ebook I have access to. Don't have a hard copy. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Spot checks - two possible issues found in eleven refs spotchecked. Coords please let me know if that means I need to check anything else. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 (Gruver p1)
 * Statement a back, typically the halfback or running back, takes a pitch or handoff from the quarterback and starts running parallel to the line of scrimmage - I'm not quite seeing the source backing this up. Perhaps it's my lack of understanding of American football terminology, but the source doesn't mention halfbacks or the term "parallel" anywhere.
 * The paragraph that supports this statement is as follows:
 * The pulling guards formed a convoy around end, with the lead guard taking out the cornerback and the offside guard picking up the middle linebacker or outside linebacker. The center executed a cutoff block on the defensive tackle, and the onside offensive tackle popped the defensive end and then sealed off the middle linebacker. The blocking back lead the ballcarrier into the hole with a down block on the defensive end, and the tight end drove the outside linebacker in the direction he wanted to go. If the linebacker made an inside move, the tight end rode him in that direction and the runner hit outside. If the linebacker went outside, the tight end moved with him and the runner cut inside.
 * The statement "parallel to the line of scrimmage" is a clearer way of stating "formed a convoy around end" and "lead the ballcarrier into the hole with a down block on the defensive end." The idea is that instead of a typical running play where the runner runs straight forward, the sweep has the runner run parallel to the line of scrimmage (the line that the center, guards, and tackles line up on) until a hole is opened by one of the blockers. Halfback is not specifically stated in that paragraph, but it is noted in the last paragraph of that page that Paul Hornung, the primary runner of the Packers sweep, is a halfback. I see this statement as an uncontroversial clarifying statement that helps clarify the differences in positions from the 1960s to today (it was common to just use the term "back" in the 1960s, while today running back or halfback, to an extent, are more common). Let me know if you believe this requires further clarification or additional sourcing. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ref 3 (Gulbrandsen) supports the three statements it references.
 * Ref 4 (Bell) looks good.
 * Ref 5 (Gruver p2) looks good.
 * Ref 11 (Jack Sell) looks good.
 * Ref 14 (Bob Fox)
 * Even though the Packers had not been successful for a number of years, Lombardi inherited a team in which five players would go on to be Pro Football Hall of Famers - the article mentions only four players who went on to the Hall of Fame. Kramer did not (much to the author's chagrin).
 * Jerry Kramer was elected to the Hall of Fame this year (2018). I added an additional source to support Kramer's induction. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 16 (Cliff Christl) looks good.
 * Ref 20 (Bruce Weber) looks good.
 * Refs 27-29 (hall of famers) good.
 * Unable to check Dunnavant, Lombardi/Heinz or Maraniss book refs (covering 2,9,10,17-19,21-23) as I don't have the books.
 * No close paraphrasing or copyvio issues noticed from the cited sources I reviewed.

Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I believe I have replied to or addressed all of your comments. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, great thanks . Your answers and clarification above have satisfied my concerns. I've watched quite a few football games from across the pond in the past few years, so I know a bit about the game but not the complex tactics that go on between linesmen on the opposing sides! Anyway, happy to support on the sources front. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Review by Wugapodes
At first glance I don't think I can support the article in its current state. I'll give my current impressions and will add more specific comments soon.
 * The section "The sweep" covers sweep plays in general without any coverage of this sweep play in particular or the way it differs from the typical sweep play.
 * Note that the "sweep" is different than the "Packers sweep". As the intro notes, the sweep came first, so a very brief overview of the sweep is warranted to set the stage for the article. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be coverage of what a general sweep play is, but at least in my reading of it, it's not clear what the Packers sweep is or how it differs from a typical sweep play, which is the subject of the article and what I expected from the section entitled "The sweep". The Gulbrandsen source at page 80 seems to touch a bit on how this play differed from a typical sweep I think, and the Cliff Christl source goes into detail about how to identify and distinguish a Packers Sweep. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I clarified in "The Sweep" section, first sentence, that the sweep forms the basis of the Packers sweep. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it, though I rephrased it slightly to (1) put the article subject as the focus of the sentence and (2) make it clear we're talking about a sweep play not the Packers sweep. Feel free to revert or modify if you want to improve it futher.
 * The first two paragraphs of the "Lombardi era" feel like coats as they provide almost no information about the play or even its development, instead focusing on the career of Vince Lombardi.
 * I disagree. The sources that focus solely on the "Packers sweep" all trace the plays development to Vince Lombardi's early coaching career. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right to disagree, after a few more readings I think this comment originally mischaracterized the section, I've tried to make a more accurate point below. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * What's "basic power running"? That should be clear as it's used in the first sentence of a section.
 * I reworded it, although I believe the words "basic power running" are as simple as can be easily stated and that any reader with any knowledge of ball sports would understand the meaning of the words. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the rewording. While the original may be clear to people with knowledge of ball sports, our articles should be accessible and informative to those who aren't, and the new wording accomplishes that. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph in the "Legacy" section duplicates a lot of the information in the previous section.
 * In my experience, it is common in sports-related articles to include a section that summarizes the legacy of the person, place, or event. This sometimes requires reiterating&mdash;minimally&mdash;some facts already stated in the article to provide proper understanding of its true legacy. That said, if you have specific comments I am obviously open to revisions. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My issue is that the reiterated information isn't about the legacy of the play, it's about the contemporaneous impact of the play. Perhaps I misunderstand what is meant by "Legacy" but my interpretation is that it covers things that happened after the "Lombardi era" which the first paragraph doesn't do. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of the "Legacy" section has too many coats. Thirteen packers were elected to the hall of fame, but not all were from the offense and so the only ones who would have run this play.
 * Again, this reinforces the most important aspect of the Packers sweep, that it epitomized the success of the NFL's first dynasty and the coaching career of one of its greatest coaches. The success of the Packers in the 1960s relied on the whole team functioning as a team, meaning that the success of the offenses feeds off the defense, and vice versa. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that the whole team was good, but the article is about the specific play, not the 1960s Packers. The success of the team was related to the defense, but the success of this particular play depended on the offense and not the defense (and a number of sources seem to support that such as the Gulbrandsen source which says "The Packers' offensive success in the Lobardi era largely revolved around ... the sweep."). It's not clear from the article or the sources I've read that non-offensive line players were implicated in the sweep beyond being on the same team that ran it. That said, I've edited my original comment because I realize I had misread the sentence, the 3 offensive players were MVPs, not related to the number of players elected to the Hall of Fame. Though looking at the list of inductees, there are some exclusively defensive players so I would still like the connection between this play and those defensive players clarified. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reworded to only reference the offensive players. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I want to go through the sources more thoroughly, but the last paragraph of the "Legacy" strikes me as attributing more to this play than is perhaps warranted. Presumably they won championships for reasons beyond a single play, the article even mentions other teams saw the success of the Packers being their players and training, so attribution of this success to this play singularly or substantially should be clear from the sourcing.
 * I would encourage you to go through the sources. They all make it clear that the Packers sweep was the defining play of the Packers in the 1960s, as well as the storied coaching career of Vince Lombardi. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * After reading some of the sources, I'm convinced and have struck, though see my other comments about the "Legacy" section. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I feel like there's a number of aspects missing from this article, namely how this play was countered, the effectiveness of those counters, whether it was picked up by other teams for use contemporaneously or after the fact. There's no specific examples of its use in a game or statistics on how successful it was in terms of offensive production.
 * Honestly, I can't write what isn't provided in reliable sources. Coverage of the NFL in the 1960s was vastly different than today, with unreliable statistics and almost no play-by-play analysis. The sources don't provide intricate details on how defenses countered the sweep; they mostly just note that defenses tried to defend the sweep particularly but usually failed because of the Packers execution or by Lombardi making slight changes to how the play was run. A few sources mention a specific instance where the play was run, but that doesn't really provide anything useful to the reader. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find pages 3 and 4 of the Gruver source helpful in this regard. It discusses how Landry of the Cowboys developed the "Flex" defense as a direct counter, and gives a specific example of the alterations to the sweep which countered the flex defense. The first two pages of the Gulbrandsen source at page 80 also gives information on how a particular play-action pass would be used if a safety or linebacker was preparing for a sweep to the right. The Bob Fox source gives a primary source estimate of 8.3 yards a carry during the first 3 years of its use. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the article, I don't feel like I understand what the play is beyond something Vince Lombardi made the Packers do. It seems to give excessive weight to things that are not the main subject of the article at the expense of content about the play itself. In general, I would like the information about the play proper to be more obvious and emphasized so that it's clear the article is about the play and not the 1959–67 Packers. Until then I'll need to oppose this nomination. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 19:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll await your more specific comments. That said, I do disagree with most of your points above and would recommend you go through the sources more closely. This is especially true for the Ed Gruver source and Vince Lombardi's biography (if you have access to it), as they both go in depth on the impact of the play on the entire team. All of the other sources make it clear that the Packers sweep had a massive impact on the success of the team, both during the actual games and in developing their own mystique or identity. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've struck a number of my comments above and responded inline where I could, though I'll summarize and clarify some of my points here. To be specific, my concerns regard FA criteria 1b, 1d, and 4.
 * The article is very well researched and the sources are of high quality and show a good breadth and depth of coverage, however the article is not comprehensive in its coverage as major facts are excluded or not placed in context: it's not clear from the article how this play differs from other plays despite this being covered in the sources; major details such as specific counters and modifications to the play as described in sources are not adequately discussed; a clear description of the play is relegated to an image caption while a longer prose description comes in the 5th paragraph of the article and third in a section entitled "Lombardi era" and confusingly not in "The sweep". Above I provided places in some sources that I think could help remedy this.
 * The issue of 1d (neutrality) and 4 (length) are in this case closely intertwined and related to the proportion of coverage given to Lombardi and the Packers. While major details about the play are hard to find or not covered, a great deal is dedicated to the career of Lombardi to the point where it reads more like a biography of him than an article about the play proper. For example, there is a section named "Lombardi era" though there's no indication this was part of any other era, and is confusing given that the section is about the development of the sweep not exclusively Lombardi's time on the Packers. The first paragraph of that section includes a number of details about Vince Lombardi that don't contribute to the understanding of the play or its development such as him having a football scholarship to Fordham, the nickname of his college offensive line, the win record of a high school football team, and sentences about him further developing his coaching skills which add length but not information. This leads to a disproportion of coverage, with the article focusing heavily on the success of Lombardi and the Packers but with proportionally less coverage on the nominal subject of the article, the particular play. Removing some of the extraneous information about Lombardi not related to the development of this play would likely remedy this. A renaming of the section heading so that it is more informative (the play is not discussed in any other era, so "Lombardi era" doesn't give us much information as to what will be in the section) would also help.
 * With regards to 4, I'm also concerned about the use of summary style and the organization of information. The section "Lombardi era" starts in 1933, 20 years before he had an NFL coaching job. If a reader wanted to know how Lombardi used this play with the Packers, they'd need to skim through two paragraphs of biographical information before getting to what is typically known as the "Lombardi era". A restructure of the section so that the most important and general information comes first and specific details later in the section would help remedy this. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added an additional section titled "Early development" to cover the earlier years prior to Lombardi coaching in the NFL and renamed the Lombardi era section. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the changes since I first commented on the article and in general I'm satisfied that the issues I've raised are mostly resolved. I no longer oppose the nomination and so have struck those mentions. Where resolved, I've struck the original comment. I also made a couple edits to the page that I think would improve it further. These should be viewed as suggestions and you're free to revert if you don't like them. I moved the first paragraph, about Lombardi's time with the Giants, into the "early development" section because it seems to fit more with the development of the packers sweep than the implementation of the packers sweep. I also slightly tweaked the "The sweep" section so it's a little more clear. I still think some of my comments above could be dealt with more, but I see nothing worth holding up the nomination over. I enjoyed reviewing this article and learned a lot, thanks for putting your work out there. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I plan on addressing your other comments in the next few days, as IRL time permits. Your edits looks good to me, appreciate the assistance and review! « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have reworked the Legacy section to tighten it up. Let me know if that addresses your concerns. Next, I will work on addressing your comment on how defenses tried to stop the sweep, whether it was successful, and how Lombardi reacted to these changes. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 22:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I believe I have addressed your comments to a certain extent. Will you take a look at the article now and strike through any resolved comments. Just want to make sure I didn't miss anything. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've not been responding quickly, this week has given me far less free time than I had hoped with travel and visits for the US holiday. I've skimmed your most recent changes and generally they look good, so don't hold anything up on my account. I do hope to take a closer look in the next day or so once I'm finished traveling. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem, no big rush. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 02:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , just following up to see if you have had a chance to review the changes and see if they have addressed your comments. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have, yes, sorry I took so long. The prose is still well put together despite all this shuffling, it clearly and comprehensively covers it's subject, and it's verifiable to high quality sources. Support Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dweller
Thank you for your responses, happy to support. Additional minor comments, not needed for support: more photos would be great, like Starr or Lombardi. Also, a niggly thing, but the diagram shows the HB rushing outside the TE only, when the caption explains he could go inside too. Dunno how easy it is to get diagram amended. If it's easy, could the offence and defence be different colours? Overall, fine work, congratulations. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Did the Packers really not have a sweep in their playbook before Lombardi arrived?
 * I imagine they did. It is pretty common though for a new coach to come into a new team with a completely new playbook. Either way, I haven't seen any sources mention this specifically. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 02:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article implies that when Lombardi arrived he brought in the sweep that wasn't previously in there, and nothing else, both of which appear to be inaccurate --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me know if this edit resolves your concern. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 21:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Now you're saying that the first play that they ran in his first match as coach was the sweep. What are you trying to say? I'm not trying to be a pedant here, genuinely don't understand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The source says "It was the first play Lombardi put in when he took over in Green Bay, telling his team, 'Gentlemen, if we can make this play work, we can run the football.'" Generally, it was the first play that he taught (or conveyed) to his team when he gave them the playbook. If you have a proposed wording, let me know. I made another slight change here. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 23:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that'll do it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * More important, but very easy to fix, I don't believe you've actually referenced in the article that the terms are notable. This is crucial! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , sorry if I am missing something, but which terms are you referencing? « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 02:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Green Bay Sweep, Lombardi Sweep. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I still don't get what you mean. Can you give me an example of what change you are specifically looking for? « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 21:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See the way the opening words of Ball of the Century are referenced. You give tons of references in this article, but nowhere can I see that you reference that reliable sources refer to this phenomenon using the words. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , the Gulbrandsen source uses both the "Packers sweep" and "Lombardi sweep". The Gruver source is titled "Lombardi sweep". The Maraniss and Dunnavant sources uses "Packer sweep". The Green Bay Press Gazette source about Jerry Kramer uses "Packers sweep". The New York Times article uses "Packer sweep." It has also been called in a few sources the "Green Bay Packers sweep", the "power sweep", the "Lombardi power sweep". I chose the two titles as they cover the predominant variations in the title (i.e. using just "Packers" or adding in "Lombardi" in some way). I don't view this as a controversial fact that warrants a citation in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. Is that all you are looking for, a citation to back-up the naming of the article? Note that I had the Gulbrandsen source in the lead a while ago, but it was removed by another editor here, which I agreed with. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 23:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sensitive to the idea of not citing in the lead, but somewhere you need to demonstrate that the terms are notable. How about "The development of what became known as the Packers sweep,[source] (also known as the Lombardi sweep),[source] began..." --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have made your suggested change. Thanks for the review, let me know if there is anything else. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 02:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks !
 * I originally had a photo of Starr and Lombardi (File:Vince_lombardi_bart_starr.jpg), but the image review brought up some concerns about when the image was first published, and thus its copyright status. The consensus was to just remove the photo. I don't believe there are any other photos of those two that don't have the same issue.
 * The diagram is very easy to manipulate. I added colors (blue and red) to differentiate the offense and defense (see image to the right). Let me know if that is what you were looking for. If you have any other suggested changes with the graphic, let me know. Regarding going inside or outside the TE, if you look closely there is a solid line going outside the TE, and a dashed line going inside the TE. This is how the diagram is displayed in the source I used, so I am hesitant to make any changes that don't match the source.  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 16:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the diagram. There are some interesting options here (check out the old guy with a woman - is that him?) and there's a lovely photo in this bunch --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not all CC licenses can be uploaded to Wikimedia. You have to select commercial/modifications allowed for Wikimedia (at least that's my understanding). The searches become much less helpful: Bart Starr and Paul Hornung. Both the workable photos of Starr are likely tagged with an incorrect license and would have the same issues as the previous photo. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 21:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes
This is a very impressive FAC debut so far, testament to the value of good preparation... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As it is your first, Gonzo, we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC, unless any of the reviewers above would like to have a go.
 * Also we'll need a regular source review for reliability and formatting, unless did it based on their comment at the top?
 * Thanks, I have added a request for both at WT:FAC. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 15:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  14:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.