Jump to content

Talk:Jordan Love

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Love extension

[edit]

Love's one year extension offers no long term notability and shouldn't be there. Comparing Lamar's extension being in the intro is an odd one considering his made him the highest paid player. Yankees10 23:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yankees10. Do you mind pointing out in MOS:LEAD or some other policy/guideline where it says that something cannot be included if it offers no long term notability? My understanding of MOS:LEAD is that the lead should adequately summarize, with appropriate weight, the key topics covered in the article. Seeing as the most recent and notable things about Love in the news over the last 6 months is his new contract (they extended him, providing some commitment to him over the next 2 seasons) and him being named starter for the 2023 season, I think these are appropriate for the lead, since they are covered in the body of the article. Obviously, him being named starter in 2023 doesn't offer longterm notability and will likely be removed at some point in the future as he has more content added to his article.
On that note, my mention of the other articles in the edit summary was more to note that there doesn't appear to be a hard or fast rule about extensions. I will also note that compared to his peers, Love's article is relatively short (1429 words, versus 4771 words for Lamar and 3985 words for Joe, as an example). Thus, the lead is likely to include details that maybe aren't included in longer articles.
All that said, I see the inclusion of this as clearly not against any policy/guideline and falls within a clear reading of MOS:LEAD. Less on a policy/guideline side, I just happen to be the editor who significantly expanded the article and am bringing it to WP:GAN right now. So although I definitely don't own this article, on items like this, that at best are grey areas or areas that are often left to editorial discretion, I think it would be respectful to leave the editorial discretion to the editor who put the time and effort into greatly expanding and improving the article. I am happy to discuss rewording or even expanding the body a bit to describe the importance of the contract extension. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that says something like this can't be included, it's just my personal opinion on the matter. "Offers no long term notability and shouldn't be there" admittedly comes off too strong. Your reasonings for keeping the extension are sound, tho I am still curious on what others think. The last paragraph is a bit sketchy tho. I've seen other editors make these types of comments and it sometimes ends up turning into a bit of an "ownership of article" issue.-- Yankees10 00:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response Yankees10 and insight. I see it more as stewardship when an editor takes on the grunt work of sourcing and expanding an article, then taking it through at least a few review processes. Obviously, if the article doesn't follow a specific policy or guideline, then it needs to be fixed. But as you note, when two editors have two opinions on how an article is written, I typically try to differ to the editor who has worked to expand the article. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzo_fan2007 and Yankees10, I'm going to add my $.02, though it isn't of as much value :) I don't necessarily see issue with his extension being in the lead, but given the relative insignificance (compared to Burrows/Jackson, etc,) of the extension given that it's one year, at very low market value, it seems sufficient to mention it later in the article in his "transition to starter" section. However, I wouldn't remove it myself, rather replace it with a potential long term extension in the near future if/when that occurs, since it will (likely) be more significant, depending on obvious factors. I guess I really don't have a position here lol just some new thoughts on it.SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 18:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jordan Love/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this shortly. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]

Other

[edit]

HickoryOughtShirt?4, did you have any other comments? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I just like to split them up so people don't get overwhelmed. I am a bit busy today but I will add more soon. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HickoryOughtShirt?4, I have a number of GAs under my belt and have done a ton of reviews. If you are ok with it, I would prefer to just have all your comments to address at once, instead of splitting them up. I am fine to wait for you to complete your full review and then address any comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, of course sorry. I felt bad not being to get it all done in one go. If you don't mind waiting a couple days, I can get it all done at once. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no rush :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review cont.

[edit]
  • It's crazy that a rookie can sign for a $12.3 million with a signing bonus of over $6.5 million! That's more than Connor McDavid.
  • It was the first time a quarterback received a fully guaranteed contract since the rookie pay scale was changed. The reference doesn't say this. It says: It's the first time the No. 26 pick has received a fully guaranteed deal under the current rookie contract system. It's interesting but I find it funny how specific this "first" is.
  • Just an option, you don't have to, but it may be a good idea to explain why Love jumped to Number 2. I assumed it was because Boyle left/was injured but it looks like it was also bc Rogers didn't report for offseason workouts.
  • replacing Aaron Rodgers don't need his first name here.
  • Love relieved Aaron Rodgers please remove the Wikilink and his first name
  • The Packers would finish the year 8–9, missing the playoffs for the first time in three seasons. - The reference says The Packers (8-9) missed the playoffs for the first time in Matt LaFleur's four seasons as coach. So wouldn't it be four seasons?
  • the Packers completed a trade sending Aaron Rodgers to New York for draft picks please remove the Wikilink and his first name
  • third different quarterback to start week 1, I think week should be capitalized here

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 15:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jordan Love; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Appears to meet all the criteria. Nice work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11 and Gonzo fan2007: The hook checks out and is interesting. I like this for Prep 1 which is December 11. However there seems to be a high earwig score (56%) and I do not know if they copied us or we copied them. Bruxton (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton Factsnippet.com releases their text under Creative Commons, safe to assume that they mirrored Wikipedia. In fact, there whole site looks like they just pull facts from Wikipedia. The other site looks like the same thing, pulling facts from Wikipedia. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


New photo?

[edit]

Isn't it time for a little less goofy looking main photo? 2603:6000:A602:121D:4D4:F88E:3247:E94D (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its the best free photo currently available. If you have a better, free alternative, then please upload it and add it to the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References f contract extension

[edit]

this edit is per the discussion here, in an effort to make sure citations for this page don't become excessive, especially for one straightforward piece of information that isn't controversial. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordan_Love&oldid=1238192774"