Important note: This is an introductory article to American football. It exists to give a basic understanding of the game and important topics relating to it. Information that does not fall under that description should go in any of the many specific articles associated with this topic.
American football received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
While I appreciate the effort behind it, the pre-snap diagram is pretty useless. For that matter a simple green background with a line through the center and defense written on one side and offense on the other (in other words, removing the positions) would have done the same thing. What good are the dots and squares if the person reading this article has no idea what they are? I mean, the point of this article is to explain football. Telling a reader who doesn't know what "... is lined up in the 4-3 defense..." means is a complete waste of time. There should be a link that goes to an article about defense and one for offense with diagrams that explain positions and then perhaps what the formations are called. You see, I came here to find out what those defensive far right and far left at the line of scrimmage positions were. The only way to figure it out is to endless look for and click links here. Do you see the problem? Also, is there an acronym list somewhere? Another example, what is a BLK or a XP ATT in stats? This is missing a good deal of information and isn't organized very well. MagnoliaSouth(talk) 19:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
You're allowed to click the blue links in the article if any of the terms so linked confuse you. Also, you're allowed to provide links to other articles that explain things you think need more explaining. You can also add more text to this article. Literally no one here has yet tried to stop you from making this article better. --Jayron32 20:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
LCB LE LT RT RE RCB (Left Cornerback/Left End/Left Tackle/Right Tackle/Right End/Right Cornerback)
WR LT LG C RG RT TE WR (Wide Reciever/Left Tackle/Left Guard/Center/Right Guard/Right Tackle/Tight End/Wide reciever)
QB HB FB (Quarterback/Halfback/Fullback)
If so, should the diagram be wider? Should there be any L/R? Linebackers can be OLB (Outside Linebacker). Half as many labels? The front linemen could be one letter each? Should the officials be shown? Sammy D III (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I just posted and deleted tables showing the player positions. They don't work in the article as tables, maybe someone can use some of this stuff to fix the diagram? Sammy D III (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Date of first Superbowl (even if not called that, at the time)
The article erroneously states that the game began in 1966. In fact, it was held in 1967, following the conclusion of the 1966 season. The text should be amended to clarify.
Sorry... Instructions for editing are very confusing.... I don't know how to "sign" my comment... but I'll try this: TreeDoctor (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Done I've clarified to say it was played at the end of the 1966 season. Anybody who clicks through the link to Super Bowl will see the 1967 date. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The article skirts around the obvious fact that the sport is only really popular in the US and Canada. Association football, cricket, rugby, baseball or various non-team sports are all far, far more popular in every other country I know of. I'm a bit skeptical to the claim of 45,000 registered players in Germany (quite unclear where The Local got it's figure from), but even if it's accurate, it's tiny compared to a whole bunch of sports including handball, shooting sports, gymnastics, golf, tennis and riding.
There are no figures for any other country except Japan where it seems to be fairly minor as well. But there is the euphemistic, slightly promotional phrase "Europe is a major target for expansion of the game". Doesn't strike me as particularly neutral.
I don't think it does, really. The article relegates mention of international play to two subsections; the first, international play, where it notes that "the game has yet to achieve the international success and popularity of baseball and basketball", describes some notable foreign leagues, and notes that it won't be an Olympic sport (even going so far as to include a quote saying as much). The second section, "popularity and cultural impact", focuses the first 50% on US popularity, briefly mentioning it's support in Canada, Mexico, and Japan (the three major countries where football has some sort of presence). Europe is relegated to a tiny section noting fringe support it Switzerland, Germany (45,000 players isn't much, but it is something), and the UK (where it notes support has fallen, not risen). I'm not sure how it skirts around anything, honestly. As for the phrase "major target for expansion", how is that not neutral? I'd say it's true that football planners are targeting Europe for expansion.
And a lack of figures is a concern, possibly, except American football is not like other sports - players don't normally register like in soccer, making it harder to judge support. Germany seems to be the exception here. Support in Japan and Mexico primarily revolves around it being used in public education, as well as support for either a domestic league or the NFL. If there were better stats, they would be given. ToaNidhiki05 23:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The article is not stating the obvious. I'd say that the "major target for expansion"-statement even goes a bit beyond that with a positive "it's growing, you know!"-spin, but leaving out the more relevant fact that it's dwarfed by so many other sports, be they team sports or not. The article provides comparisons for the US and Canada, so leaving it out for the rest of the World doesn't seem balanced. We don't need a country-by-country table, but there should be some general examples.
I've been following this thread for the last couple of days, and I'm not sure what the point or desired change is. Yes, American football is a peculiarly American phenomenon, where it is far and away the most popular spectator sport and the most financially successful professional sport; yes, it is played primarily in the United States, and a very similar, but different game is played in Canada (i.e., Canadian football); yes, many other sports are more popular in countries other than the United States and Canada. All of that can be summed up in a sentence or two, rather than doing a detailed reprise of how it's not particularly popular in every other major region of the world. Like I said, it's an American sport and a peculiarly American phenomenon -- and that's really most of what needs to be said, apart from perhaps mentioning its moderate popularity in Japan and several European countries where it is more of novelty than anything else. Doing a country-by-country table of participants and fan support is a mostly pointless exercise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I was suggesting: state the obvious. If figures are given, like for Germany, there should be some sort of comparison to other sports. Also, it would be preferable if the stat given by The Local was confirmed somehow. It's quite unclear where it comes from.
Well, the obvious is stated. Multiple times. There's literally nothing in here that suggests football is very popular outside of North America and Japan. ToaNidhiki05 12:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The article is very detailed about the US, providing excellent comparisons and context. For other countries, no comparisons at all are given. Even in Japan, it seems quite small. The number of Japanese high school players is stated as 15,000, but that's still tiny compared to the US. Even if adjusted for population differences, it would correspond to roughly 3-4% of US popularity. But the infobox claims that its presence is "Worldwide (most prominent in North America, Europe, and Japan)". Not outright false, but clearly exaggerated. And we still have the slippery "expansion"-phrase regarding Europe.
So definitely not trying to state the obvious. I wouldn't be pressing this if it wasn't for the GA status and that American football is quite unique. How many other sports are such a big deal in one major country, but seen as an oddity elsewhere? Not oven the national pastime is quite as insular.
Mind you, I'm not criticizing football because it's alien to me as a European. I actually followed the NFL for a few years in my youth (including a watching a couple of early 1990s Super Bowls at ungodly hours). I just think the article should be clearer on some things.
It probably should say "primarily North America". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding some things. First off, the template says "Worldwide" because that is what the template calls for. The description on the inbox page for that part clearly says:
Geographic area(s) the sport is present. Use the largest geographic area(s) that apply. If, for example, If the sport has presence in every province in Canada, list Canada, do not list each province. Values can be narrow (e.g. a city), sub-national ("Western and northern China", "Texas and Louisiana"), multi-national in several ways ("Latvia and Estonia", "pan-European", "Latin America, Spain and the Philippines", etc.), and "Worldwide" is used for global sports
The sport has registered federations and clubs in each continent of the world, hence the descriptor "Worldwide". The specific countries are given to note precisely where it is 'most popular', in order to avoid the false idea it is popular everywhere. And I still don't see issue with the "expansion" phrase given it is actually true.
As for statistics, the only real stat comparison given is that there are more high school football players than high school basketball players in North America. If there are comparable statistics for registered Japan high school players, and they are given in a single document, I see no reason not to add it. I just don't know where such would exist, partly because I cannot read Japanese. ToaNidhiki05 00:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)