Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pop Warner/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2016.

Pop Warner

 * Nominator(s): Rybkovich (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the life and coaching career of legendary American college football coach Pop Warner. He is one of the key innovators of modern football strategy. Rybkovich (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments - seems like a shame that no one has gotten to this sooner.
 * The article seems like it's a bit short on details about Pop Warner himself, rather than his football accomplishments. Is there nothing more in the sources?
 * Have not found any significant info re his relationships, major events out side of his coaching. But I do think that there is allot about his personality that comes through the context of football events - pleasant, empathetic, drinks, thinks through when it comes to the game, but takes chances outside of it. Rybkovich (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence also seems a bit lacking. Warner was obviously a football player and coach, but his legacy has clearly been far more than that. You can't explain all the nuances, but I think it would be good to at least hint at his impact right up front.✅
 * – so they earned $23 instead of the expected $300? This isn't clear, nor is the dollar conversion (23 -> 618 and 300 -> 8000?). ✅
 * Be careful with the blockquotes. I'd be sure to distinguish who Jenkins or Powers are ("historian" or something similar is enough).
 * I introduced the writer - name, the kind of writer, the first time the name is used, later just the last name is used prior to the quote. You thik that works? Rybkovich (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What did he do in retirement? There's a pretty big gap there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you very much. Will get back re the issues ASAP. Question: is there anyway to mirror this discussion on to the Pop Warner talk page? Rybkovich (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this what you meant? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Exectamundo :) Rybkovich (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All of those seem in rybkovich's capacity to fix, but I felt I would chime in due to also doing some work on the article. For details about himself, do you mean in say the early years or personal section? Or neither or both. RE: opening sentence, what add "pioneering" or something? Wouldn't count on myself fixing that one. RE: retirement, woodworking is one. Cake (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't really have specifics in mind, but I'd like to know something/anything more about him as a person. Right now I only know his parents, his wife, two vices, and painting, and there's a pretty large gap in his retired years (did he really do nothing in that time?). If there's no sources for his personal life, so be it, but I'd like to make sure that we've done our due diligence. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pope relays that apple pie with butter was another vice, but I figured it unnecessary with the childhood nickname. As I recall, he painted and had a woodworking garage in his retirement. Pope also mentioned "songwriting". One might add his cursing pre-Carlisle. Cake (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments – Welcome to FAC, Rybkovich and MisterCake! I'm sorry the article hasn't gotten much attention to this point, as this is a major figure in American football. These are my initial thoughts after reading part of the article and making some copy-edits: That's all for now. I'll try to come back and read the rest in the near-future, although I'm usually busy in real life and can't offer any promises. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 23:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * While I understand that details of Warner's personal life are likely to be somewhat sparse (coaches in the early 1900s probably didn't get major press attention like a Bill Belichick), I do agree with Ed that we should say more about his impact on football in the first few sentences of the lead. If nothing else, you should move the next-to-last sentence of the lead up, as that would help a great deal. Also, it seems to me that Warner introducing the three-point stance is important enough to be mentioned in the lead, as that marked a major change in playing style. ✅
 * Cornell: Since language like "today" is discouraged because it can become outdated easily, I recommend changing all conversions to "in XXXX dollars" or similar language. ✅
 * In the extensive list of books cited, make sure that all of the books have publishers listed. Something like the Howie Long book, for example, should have a publisher available. You'll receive a source review if the FAC goes well, and you might as well take care of such issues now. ✅
 * Reference 161 is a dead link. Try checking the Internet Archive to see if an archived version is available. ✅
 * References with all caps in the titles and publishers – numbers 146, 148–150, and 158 – should have the all caps taken out. ✅
 * I believe the Manual of Style recommends against having multiple sub-sections with the same heading, which occurs with two Cornells: one in the early years part of the article and one for his coaching career. Try changing the first one, since it makes sense to leave the one in the coaching career section the way it is. ✅ Does this work?
 * Cornell: Let me get this straight: Warner coached two teams at the same time for several years? That's fascinating, and I recommend we add some more details on this if available. How did this work, in terms of his time commitments? Did the teams' games always take place at different times of the year, or did he have to choose which game to attend in person? ✅ (re Iowa state and Georgia). How does the current division of two stints at Cornell and Carlisle work for everyone? Rybkovich (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Back to Carlisle: Non-experts probably won't know what Pitt is at the end. It might also be confusing because the next section is titled Pittsburgh. I'd recommend stretching it out to Pittsburgh here. ✅
 * Pittsburgh: Since the reader isn't going to hear about the Naval Reserves loss/controversy for another few paragraphs, perhaps that part should be omitted from the first paragraph here to avoid possible confusion. ✅
 * Stanford: "coached by Knute Rockne. Rockne...". Try not to have a name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another, as that isn't great prose. In this instance, you could try saying, "Like Warner, Rockne...", which would create some space between the identical names.
 * "including 1932 Warner's last season at Stanford." Comma needed after the year.
 * Coaching legacy: Another "Today" here; consider mentioning the year in question in the last sentence.
 * Innovation: From my experience at FAC, many of the regular reviewers sometimes don't care for list-like elements when they could be summarized in writing. I fear that the list of innovations here will attract criticism for that reason. See if you can summarize this useful content in prose.
 * I would disagree with the an official reviewer if that was raised. The section at hand is a reference section, like a column with wins and losses or something like that. It is for quick info access. Some key info will not be obtained because the reader can skip the paragraph and miss the info without her knowledge. Rybkovich (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note 1: As the coaching record table currently appears to lack a reference, I'd recommend adding cites to the NCAA and College Football Data Warehouse records mentioned here, as they will provide citations for the table at the same time as verifying the note itself.
 * The all caps in the title of reference 8 should be toned down. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- This has been open two months without achieving any clear support for promotion, and there's been no activity for three weeks, so I'm going to archive it; you can re-nominate after two weeks, assuming all outstanding points above have been actioned. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.