Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 00:07, 6 February 2008.

Tyrone Wheatley[edit]

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very complete and well-sourced article on the career of a notable athlete. It will hopefully be the first modern NFL biography to achieve FA (only Jim Thorpe is a FA now).TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It also appears he will be the first College football player bio to achieve FA if successful. This claim like the NFL claim above is based on talk page project tags. Articles like Gerald Ford do not have college football project tags on them. There may be others like Ford, but it is impossible to tell. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - The article actually suffers from too much writing... the lead is too long, and the page in general is too detailed. I'm not saying it's bad, but it needs to be trimmed down a bit before it reaches FA status. Anthony Hit me up... 18:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WRT, the article is too long: Are there many facts in the article that are irrelevant to a complete description of the subject? In all honesty, if I were to change the article there are more things I would add than subtract. The article is probably below average in length for an internet era athlete bio FA.
    • Comment WRT, the lead is too long: The lead is written so that the first paragraph is a stub version of the entire article and the other three paragraphs are expansions of the first. The lead could be shortened to three paragraphs without the first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object (revised) MECU≈talk 13:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the images used are fairly un-involving to this player. They mostly include stadiums he played in. The first (and only) image of a person is a coach he had: seems odd. I think a free image of the person should be possible; he was a fairly recent player. At the very least, some of the images should be moved over to the left to avoid being redundant.
    • Also, I think the 100-yard game list/table at the end looks funny as is. Should just be a regular table. I don't think it needs to be sortable, but the style it is in is boring.
    • Some language isn't all that inspired and factually could go out of date,
      • "Wheatley now ranks fourth in career rushing at U-M, as shown in the following chart:[15]" should be more like "As of January 2008, Wheatley currently ranked fourth in career rushing at Michigan.[15]" U-M is awkward, and "as shown in the following chart" seems redundant. This type of thing occurs several times.
      • "shared the rushing load"
      • "before he began his run with"
      • "Wheatley claims to have dunked from just inside the foul line against his high school rival Inkster High School.[6]" So? I claim to have been to Mexico. Does it matter in a biography on the person?
        • The fact that a person who was state athlete of the year in two sports relishes telling stories about dunking on his high school rival in a third tells you something about the guy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are 4 paragraphs in a row that start "In (year), ".

It's quite clear a lot of work has gone into this article, but it still needs a fine toothed comb to resolve these issues that remain before it's a FA. MECU≈talk 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Thank you for putting in so much work on the article, but I think it needs a good amount of work before it reaches FA status. I only made it through the lead, and these are some of the problems I noticed there. I suspect they exist throughout the article.
    • Why is the table of contents at the top left corner? That is not a normal WP practice.
    • Birthplace should generally not be in the lead. Instead, mention it in the body of the article.
    • Per WP:MOSNUM, try to avoid mixing written out numbers and numerals in the same sentence (ten NFL seasons, 6500 all-purpose yards, four times should be 10, 6500, and 4).
    • Per WP:NBSP, the article needs a nonbreaking space between each number and its qualifier/unit (6500 yards needs one, for example)
    • "turning the football program around" seems a bit colloquial to me
    • Second paragraph has 2 sentences in a row that begin "Wheatley". Can they be varied a bit?
    • Article mentions twice that he played 10 NFL seasons in the first two paragraphs. Seems a bit of unnecessary duplication to me.
    • "tardy dawdler" made me laugh but it sounds too much like an inventive insult.
      • Those terms come from the refs. He was described as regularly tardy and as a dawdler in the refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd use quotes then, because it really doesn't sound like a phrase that most people would say or expect to read. (I think it would be a great pirate quote – "Avast ye tardy dawdler; 'tis the plank for ye!") Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am using the uncited lead option. Where the lead refers to facts that are well cited in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a cite issue, it's a quote issue. You are quoting those terms, which together sound realllly odd. Can you just find a new way to say that (paraphrase, not quote)? Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence "His time with the Giants was unproductive..." is a little unwieldy. I think there is too much information in it.
    • The lead is a little out of order, which is confusing. If you look at it as:

1= high school career, 2 = college, 3=NFL, 4=post-NFL, then the lead is broken up this way

first paragraph: General sentence, 1, 2, 3, 1/2, 4
Second paragraph: 3
Third paragraph: mostly 2 with a random reference to 1
fourth paragraph: 4, 1, 4

That is way too much jumping around and needs to be organized a bit better

    • Do high school and head coach really need a wikilink? Alma mater is linked twice, as is Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) (and why use the abbreviation the first time if it isn't used in subsequent references?), and Big 10....etc. They should be linked once in the lead and then once in the body of the article, not every time.
    • The prose also needs work, as sometimes it sounds more like a list of statistics rather than good flowing paragraphs, and sometimes there is just too much information crammed into a sentence. Lead now reads MUCH better. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, in a non-lead note, the references are not formatted consistently. Some list a newspaper name in italics, some have it in bold, some don't have either, and the NYT ones list the company, not the newspaper.

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • More comments from karanacs
    • Prose: In early life section, three of four sentences begin with "Wheatley" (even if one is really about his father). First paragraph of high school section: 6 sentences, 4 of which begin with he/Wheatley. I know some of the paragraphs you aren't going to be able to fix completely because they are full of stats, but try :)
      • First paragraph sounds great now, but second paragraph is too casual. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early life section: Since his mother was never mentioned, I thought at first that the half brother was Wheatley's sibling by his father, which confused me. Is his mother still living? How much younger is his sibling, and why does he have custody of his cousins? (I know you probably can't find all of this, but if you can expand at all it would be helpful).
    • Citation for why Leslie is Wheatley's ward?
      • Nothing more than what is in the current version of the article, but this is more than you had before and might be satisfactory to you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide context for his ability to slam dunk? How rare is that for high school athletes?
      • Wheatley is a state record holder in the long jump. He has extraordinary leaping ability. I have been fighting with a statement that I had originally included of a boast about dunking on his high school rival. The toned down sentence is hard to make sense of in context. Can you look at the history and tell me what you think of earlier versions of this topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about moving that sentence up and adding a little more context? If you can work it in close to one of the Long jump sentences, then the sentence could read something along the lines of "His jumping abilities were futher exhibited in basketball; Wheatley played for his high school basketball team and was able to slam dunk." (this sentence is not great either) Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not so sure about moving it up since the high school section essentially flows football, track, basketball and putting basketball in the middle of track might have other broader stylistic implications. However, I added a lot more context and hopefully you can back me up against the objection above. I also placed a separate section at Talk:Tyrone Wheatley so that a coordinated discussion of this topic could be had.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a "currently" in the sentence about his 110 metre hurdles time; please replace with "As of...." so it doesn't get out of date without people noticing
    • College section doesn't need to begin with "After becoming a nine-time MHSAA champion" because that has been explained pretty clearly in preceding paragraph.
    • Do you think it might be better to summarize his football college records with a table rather than try to put it all in prose?
      • I am in the midst of rearranging this. I am not sure what kind of table I would use, but stay tuned. I should be done revising the college section by the end of the day on the fourth.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is Elvis Grbac and why is Wheatley compared against him? A little context might help
    • Were his career rushing yards a record at Michigan or NCAA as a whole? There are a few other stats in that paragraph that I weren't sure if it was supposed to be for Michigan players or Big 10 or NCAA as a whole.
    • Did his freshman average yds per carry set a record when he was a freshman, or was he 4th then and has remained fourth?
    • "left the door open " is too colloquial
    • I think I would mention his college track experience first in the college section, since that is what the article talks about in the preceeding paragraph, and the paragraph just after that is NFL (football again).
      • Wheatley is best known as a football player. Thus, both in the high school and college section I discuss football first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information about 2006 and 2007 season rankings for his track times is confusing. I think I understand what it means, but I think it might be able to be presented better.
    • Herschel Walker "received a lot of the attention in passing downs", but isn't Wheatley a running back, so why did that affect him a lot?
    • If Reeves didn't want Wheatley, why didn't they draft Rashaan Salaam instead?
    • The paragraph on his intro to the Giants is clunky
    • What was the controversy about the weight limit? Was he not allowed to be more than 235 pounds? Did that apply only to Wheatley (those offensive linemen ought to weigh more than that)?
    • Is "cancer in the locker room" a quote from somewhere? It is an odd bit of phrasing.
    • "The Giants were quickly remiss about how..." -> I am not sure what this sentence is trying to say
    • The article says "attempting rehab", which implies that he failed. Is that true? The article doesn't mention any other addiction problems (either before or after that)
    • I don't think you need to include the information about Leslie's future career.
      • Actually, this is a part of the story that Wheatley kept his brother out of trouble enough to get him committed to going to college (a big deal for an Inkster lad) and got him up to a high enough athletic level that it was necessary that he sign a letter of intent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since both the personal life and early life sections are so short, it might be wise to combine them into a single "personal life" section where the early life section is.

16:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

      • I have been told the opposite in other reviews. Are you sure? Compared to many professional non-All-Star athletes, both sections are actually fairly substantial.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment — I'd suggest trimming the lede down some, then restoring the TOC to its default position. To me, the lede should be something that gives you the quick highs and lows of the subject; this one's a bit too long. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply O.K. I shortened the lead. However, recall the lead for a long article is suppose to be four paragraphs according to WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Four paragraphs is just the maximum suggested by WP:LEAD. I think there are too many details in the lead still, so I suggest it be shortened. If you wish, I can try shortening it as well. I have had similar issues on some of my articles, but I have now become experienced in knowing what details should and shouldn't be included. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It says three to four for long articles. I'll take another look and of course anyone else can too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note the complainant below is satisfied. I don't think removing much more would "be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" as WP:LEAD suggests.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I have moved the TOC to the standard position.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Thanks for the quick response. This article is a well-cited, comprehensive, and accurate look at a player on the Michigan Wolverines football team, the winningest program in NCAA history. It's worthy of Featured Status, and I'm happy to give my support. My only two requests are that you somehow find a picture of Wheatley (If possible ... I know it's tough to find a free use one) and that you expand the early life section (again, if possible). Keep up the great work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This sentence: "Based on graduating high school class year, Leslie is about 13 years younger than Wheatley" appears to be OR. The entire article could use a copy edit by someone who can write, overall very poorly written. I suppose you don't take comments from anonymous editors, as if you all aren't anonymous. But that's my take on reading the article. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example of poor writing: "his local public high school", wordy and vague to the point of being meaningless. It isn't "his" high school. Just name the school, what public high school isn't local? A sentence like TW attended Hamilton J. Robichaud High School in Inkster MI, or something like that. There are plenty of other poorly written sentences but I am not going through this with a fine toothed comb for you, that should be up to the person who thinks this article is ready for featured status (it's not)69.137.246.61 (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noticing a comment above, I agree the intro is simply too long. I skipped it, too long didn't read (TLDR) syndrome here.69.137.246.61 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tyrone_Wheatley/archive1&oldid=1138474481"