Talk:Michael Vick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Michael Vick has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 20, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
January 9, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject College football (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as Mid-importance).

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Virginia (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject National Football League (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Criminal Biography (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Criminal Biography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed library of criminal-related biographical articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

'Convicted Felon'[edit]

Not sure I understand the 'convicted felon' reference in the opening sentence. I feel this should be removed. So anyone who's been to jail should be noted as a 'convicted felon' in their opening Wikipedia sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition under main section Michael Vick a Dog Owner Again[edit]

On October 11th Michael Vick confirmed he was a dog owner again "I understand the strong emotions by some people about our family's decision to care for a pet," Vick said in a statement. "As a father, it is important to make sure my children develop a healthy relationship with animals. I want to ensure that my children establish a loving bond and treat all of God's creatures with kindness and respect. Our pet is well cared for and loved as a member of our family." - Percival2436 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Percival2436 (talkcontribs) 00:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This is nonsense, his owning a dog again should not be in his personal bio. Many people who have bios on here love/d dogs and cats and its well documented but its not added to their bio. This article is not a PR piece to clean up his image. --Ckarsiyaka (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Vick received steroids[edit]

On Saturday's Atlanta Journal Constitution: Add where appropriate please. --Mjrmtg (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There it is. I used the Dallas Morning News instead of the AJC because they're who Jacobs talked to, and the AJC article kind of comes off like a game of telephone. And to nip it in the bud, I caution against anybody mentioning details of Jacobs's death, since they're not relevant to this article's subject. Şłџğģő 06:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Just added the same info to Jacobs's page. Şłџğģő 06:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

some stuff to work into the article[edit]

(from this article

  • """"Why sacrifice so many animals and put them in vulnerable positions to be harmed and injured?" he told The AP. "It was pointless."

The first episode does offer a glimpse, however, at answering that question. Vick said he saw his first dogfight as a 7-year-old. Vick's brother, Marcus, tells the cameras that growing up "we never knew there was nothing wrong with it." Michael Vick said on Thursday that dogfighting was a part of black culture. "When you grow up in the inner cities, when you grow up in the urban neighborhoods, that's pretty much what you get," Vick said. "You don't have opportunities to do certain things at your own leisure. When you have down time, if you're not playing football, basketball or baseball, then you're looking for some activity to get into.""""

(There's probably alot more from that article that can be worked in here. The Reality TV show section that i just added can be expanded. )

  • There's that report that come out a month ago about how he enjoyed dogfighting 'for the thrill of it' and not for the money like he has previously stated (can't find the link at the moment)
  • reports have surfaced on NFL network that the Eagles will either trade or release Vick and not pick up the second year of the contract

RF23 (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually slimmed the new section a bit. The show hasn't premiered yet, and HuffPo's article adds little to our understanding of the whole sordid affair. (For that matter, I don't really want to know the specifics the series might provide.) They're way off, too, when they tagged this show "reality tv." "The Surreal Life" or "Jersey Shore" this ain't.
As far as future NFL moves, I would strongly oppose adding anything until it happens. This article is already way too long.
Şłџğģő 04:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

vicks first start in 2010 was actually last sunday (9/19/10) against the detroit lions as kolb was out with a concussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As of last night, Vick has passed Steve Young for 2nd on all-time QB rushing list. This needs to be updated at the top. Lock obviously prevents me from doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

lead section contradiction[edit]

The fisrt and third paragraphs of the lead section contradict: one says he served 19 months the other says 23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, neither number was right. Fixed, I think. Şłџğģő 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

One additional category for accuracy.[edit]


Allocate Proper Weight Regarding Section.

Request & Topic Details:

I'm requesting the development of information and placement of a proper term with definition to be inserted into the page under the proper section regarding either the legal matters or another appropriate section regarding victims and killing involvement by Vick. The request is for the part notating information regarding mention of victims [dogs section] please notate the term and dictionary definition information below linking proper placement. Below you will find provided the dictionary term references. The term by definition upholds proper placement and accuracy regarding incident matters and should be addressed by notating it.

Please note, all other negative convictions and issues have much weight but this subject has only been briefly addressed seemingly lessening the actual event in history. This subject section lacking information and attention doesn't seem developed enough considering the national weight factually held due to the government's Federal Agency involvement versus the other issues highlighted more in depth.

Last request, maybe more information pertaining to Federal Information, Media Coverage, Widespread Reaction, etc... can be explored in addition to my suggestion above. This would then fairly depict the entire pages balance covering both past positive accomplishments (e.g. charitable contributions to organizations) vs. past negative accomplishments (mass killing, convictions, & FBI)as well. Perhaps there should be a standard template dedication section highlighting a secondary table as well for Legal/Convictions, Media, and Societal Impact.

Sincerely, Juliet

Definition According To: [, ] serial killer n. A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Reference Link: [, ] [1] serial killer noun someone who murders more than three victims one at a time in a relatively short interval WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Reference Link: [, ] [2] --Julietkiss (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"

Smappy (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow this page is goin to get vandolized[edit]

You should protect this even more because some person is going to edit the first sentance into "Michael Vick is a professional dog fighter. I know I would write that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

One way of protecting a page is to have a bunch of people watch it. I, for one, have reverted vandalism on this page several times because vandalism shows up on my watchlist, which I monitor daily. Another solution: Several automated users, called "bots," are very good at recognizing vandalism and removing it almost automatically. ClueBot is really good at this sort of thing. Either way, if someone inserts that kind of vandalism, it wouldn't last five minutes.
Of course, because you're such a helpful, intelligent person, you just brilliantly threatened to vandalize a page that, as you guessed, has been vandalized countless times. Good job. Şłџğģő 01:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I am very welcome. Thank you for the kind response ;)


Why isnt there any information on the shooting investigation that Vick is involved in? It is all over the major news outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Dog fighting[edit]

In his dog fighting incident, let's not forget it was reported that many cats were killed as well. There were reports that the cats were thrown at the dogs and were ripped apart and malled as practice for the dogs. Later, any underperforming dogs were killed as well. This should be in the article as well; not to make him look bad (I think he handled that himself), but because it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Spuds67, 3 October 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

Spuds67 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing requested. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


WOW, is that hugely long and detailed section on his Bankruptcy really necessary? It is almost fully half of the article and has absolutely NOTHING to do with why Vick is a notable figure and is of almost no historical significance. (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What he said. (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hilter was famous. Does that make him good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Were there specific parts of the bankruptcy section that you wanted to cut out? FWest2 (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


vick is left-handed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


add to article ? It is obvious to everyone that Michael Vick has turned his entire life ar0ound to be many notches above his former performance in pro football to the peak performance this year of any pro quarterback including Colts Manning and in his attitudes to include strong humility and rapid growth in all areas. Congrats on rehabbing to a fine person Michael. /s Tyrell Joanz XXX Sr , kkll69.121.221.97 (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. His rehabilitation needs to be part of this article. It too is widely documented and should be part of the article in accordance with WP:BALANCE Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If Mike turn his life around, Ivan Demjanjuk did too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Article is Too Long[edit]

Why is there a detailed discussion of every single incident Vick has been involved with? I can't imagine this is engaging for readers, and it is not common practice to discuss in detail every transgression every NFL quarterback has been involved with. I don't understand why there is an exception for Vick. It's a little offensive, honestly, given the fact the rampant racism against black quarterbacks in the NFL. Why has an exception been made for Vick? This question needs to be answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Trimming the article down in this case may not be such a bad idea FWest2 (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Article length[edit]

This article is currently 108 kilobytes long, and several IPs and new users above have commented on this talk page to complain about the article's length. Roughly a year ago, I tried unsuccessfully to make changes to this article, but they were shortly reverted. Can we come to a consensus as to how to shorten this article? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems that the "Incidents, Criminal Troubles" and "Financial Troubles" sections take up half of the article. Perhaps these could be split off to a dedicated article. DeFaultRyan 22:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the "Financial Troubles" section, in particular, goes into far more detail than is really needed and give undue weight to that aspect of the coverage. The other stuff, I'm less sure, because the dogfighting conviction, etc. was really big news. cmadler (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Support Split there's more than enough wide coverage from the dogfighting incidents alone to warrant an article there (to some it may be silly or cruel or whatever, but HEY widespread coverage is widespread coverage--it's a notable event in itself).--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an article on the dog fighting investigation (Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation) which is linked as the main article under the "Dog fighting investigations" section of this article. Therefore, we could cut out most of the highly detailed information under this section that already appears in the main article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Now I know why I stay away from controversial Wikipedia subject material: this article is out of control and there are apparently several editors who like it that way. Among the numerous examples of overkill: why does the description of Vick's bankruptcy case have details for every major creditor?? The legal and financial problems sections read like a first-year associate's case summary memo for a law firm partner. LOL I don't know that this article needs to be split so much as it needs an editor who is willing to take the lead in eliminating the gross overkill level of trivia and minutiae, and developing a new consensus around a reasonable and balanced level of detail in describing Vick's legal and financial problems per WP:W. We need to know that he filed bankruptcy, the total amount of his debts, and the outcome of the case. We don't need to to know the names of every creditor and the judge's disposition of those individual debts. Likewise, you don't need the complete history of every pleading in his criminal cases. The charges should be identified, the outcomes stated, and the sentences given. The current level of detail is not appropriate. If you can't reduce the level of detail in the main article by consensus, then by all means split off separate dog-fighting and bankruptcy articles. If you want someone with a legal background to take a whack at these sections, let me know, but I will need a lot of talk page support and protection from the folks who are guarding this page as it presently exists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this article is too long. The section about incidents with the law is ridiculous and in violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. I agree with the person who said that the dog fighting conviction should be put in a separate article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The article length is fine. From an editorial standpoint, it serves to illustrate the complexities of his life; which have been many. I found it very interesting to read. (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - the section about his bankruptcy is way too long.Gwyka (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, the level of detail seems unnecessary to many readers. This is like those plot synopses in the movie articles, except some people enjoy the spoilers. In this case, the demand has been exhausted for the level of detail even a reader interested in bankruptcies in a general sense would desire. That's my gut objection. But guidelines for neutrality--while refuting as a matter of policy my instinct about the article--point out in a different line of reasoning as to why we should conscientiously prune this hydrid Venus Flytrap.
"Discussion of isolated events...about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
"Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
The section would not stand alone as its own article (notability); yet the sources are valid; so it's the discussion of these sources, according to guidelines, which should be trimmed. How far? So as to mirror the same proportion in which reliable sources note the bankruptcy. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
A lot Claude. I will get to work on this boldly if I have time in the future. This article is a disgrace and it appears mostly inexperienced editors are keeping it that way(?). Trevor GH5 (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Invalid external links[edit]

The following external links for this article are invalid:

Official Website ( and Michael Vick on Twitter (

Replacement verifiable links could not be found. Eric C. (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done removed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Carlson says Vick should have been executed for killing dogs[edit]

News reporter Tucker Carlson says that Michael Vick should have been given lethal injection for killing dogs. I mean, come on! Who gives Carlson the right to kill Michael Vick for killing dogs?! he has the right to kid, if you dont think so your an insensitive prick Here's the story if you want to improve this article: Carlson: Vick deserved death penalty --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the comments of one gas bag are particularly relevant here. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
That would probabally be more relevant for Tucker Carlson than here.-- (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Article's time sense is totally schizo; timeline badly needed[edit]

I'm curious to find out whether a template exists to add a timeline graphic to a WP article. Failing that, a complete rewrite of the section relating to Vick's criminal activities, prosecution, sentencing, and incarceration is badly needed. As the section currently stands it is not possible to determine exactly how much time Vick did serve in prison (as opposed to how much time off for good behavior, or how much time was reduced due to completing the drug rehab program), or how much of Vick's time was served at Northern Neck and how much was served at Leavenworth. It is also difficult and non-intuitive to determine, from the article as currently written, when he entered custody, when he began serving his sentence, when he qualified for the rehab program, when (if?) he was awarded any time off due to behavior or the rehab program, and when he was released. (Yes, I see this last detail in the article but it's not placed anywhere sensible and nothing is done to call attention to it from the preceding, unrelated paragraph.)

In short, the chronology of his misadventure through the penal system is almost impossible to determine from this article without poring over this section and doing a good deal of detective-work. The chronology should be clear from a glance. I will wait for suggestions a bit before I start making changes; I'm sure this article's regular editors will want to weigh in. Cheers, Kasreyn (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mikist4, 26 January 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Add to the "Endorsement" section: On January 25th, 2011 it was announced that Vick signed his first endorsement deal since his release from prison. The Philadelphia Eagles' Pro Bowl quarterback inked a two-year contract with Unequal Technologies, a provider of the football pads Vick wore most of last season.[3]

Mikist4 (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This should be done, but the "Endorsement" section is explicitly under the "Falcons" section, so a reorganization of some sort is probably needed. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Since it appears this is already being addressed by a capable editor, I'm going to remove the esp banner for now to help clear up backlogs. elektrikSHOOS 23:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Musclepharm should be added to the endorsement section for 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


I have no idea how to contact somebody about the misinformation on Michael Vick's page, so i'll just put it here. He did NOT sign a 100 million dollar contract with 40 million garunteed, he signed a 90 million dollar contract with about 35.5 million garunteed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not misinformation. The contract is technically $100 million, even though the sixth year is just fluff. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Under controversies, it says: "He later failed to show up for another seat booked for him later that evening." Since the article is locked, I can't edit - can someone who can edit please clean this up (remove one of the instances of "later")? (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Vick is now the leader in rushing yards for QBs ahead of Randall Cunningham[edit]

This needs to be fixed. Benjaln (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 16 October 2011[edit]

On Sunday October 16th 2011 Michael Vick ran for 52 yards placing him as the Quarterback with the most rushing yards, not second most.

Lilleswing (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2012[edit]

}} Michael Dwayne Vick (born June 26, 1980) is an American football quarterback

"please change IS to WAS because he does not NOW play football" (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't see anything to confirm your claim, can you provide a reliable source confirming his alleged retirement? Monty845 19:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Michael Vick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PortlandOregon97217 (talk · contribs) 07:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Early proceedings In August 2008, Vick's finances were in such disarray that a bankruptcy judge had been asked to appoint a trustee to oversee them. U.S. Trustee W. Clarkson McDow, Jr. noted in court documents filed in Virginia that, by his own admission, Vick "has limited ability to arrange his finances and limited ability to participate in the bankruptcy case on an in-person basis." McDow wrote in his motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee "It appears that Mr. Vick has routinely relied upon others to make financial decisions for him, giving them discretionary control over large sums of money". McDow named Mary Wong and David A. Talbot as individuals who had obtained broad written authority to act as his attorney-in-fact over all of his financial affairs.[107] is a dead link. Since that is about contentious information I would have to say this article doesn't meet good article standards.

It also says their were dozens of creditors. How many is dozens? 36? 120?

The outcome of the case was an award of $4.5 million to Joel.[89] says Joel was awarded 4.6 million.

On September 26, 2007, 1st Source Bank, based in South Bend, Indiana, claimed in a federal lawsuit that it had suffered damages of at least $2 million as Vick and Divine Seven LLC of Atlanta had refused to pay for at least 130 vehicles acquired to be used as rental cars. The Specialty Financing Group of 1st Source provides financing for rental car fleets.[96]

I'm not sure what the Truckers bank plan but citation 96 is no bueno

You've got to at least have decent citations if you are saying he owes millions to companies and their arent reliable sources atttached. I'd say it fails PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't mean to butt in here, but I'd say the issues cited above are relatively easy to correct, and the article shouldn't be failed until the nominator has a chance to respond properly. These amount to minor concerns, really. I'm happy to take a thorough look at the article myself, if you think it would help. --Batard0 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie. It upset me that " Vick "has limited ability to arrange his finances and limited ability to participate in the bankruptcy case on an in-person basis." McDow wrote in his motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee "It appears that Mr. Vick has routinely relied upon others to make financial decisions for him, giving them discretionary control over large sums of money" " was cited with a dead link.

Then the part with a claim by 1stsource bank saying Vick owes them money is sourced with a link to their website? Maybe you didnt see Vick in his heyday in the early 2000's, but I did. And after all this guy has been through he needs a fair shake. And to just put "on hold" something that would make such contentious claims as well as not double check that they are accurate or at least not dead links... Well I'll just say whoever nominated it should give the article a thorough runthrough and then try again. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just so I understand properly, are you quick-failing the article because of one broken link and one primary source? I think we can agree this seems a little thin; it might be worth citing the specific criterion under which it's being failed. In general, I'd suggest it's a good idea to assume good faith and allow for a response first. These are legitimate concerns, but they're not impossible to fix in a prompt way. The GA process is actually a good means of fixing issues like this that might otherwise go unnoticed for months, if not longer. Putting it "on hold" in some ways actually makes the correction of contentious or improperly sourced material more likely than failing it does. --Batard0 (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Michael Vick/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 17:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

And here we go -- it may take a day or two for me to really dig in, but I'll get started shortly. --Batard0 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • At long last, I'm finally getting started on this one. Sorry about the delay. I'll begin with a detailed review of the prose and then we can address any other issues that may arise. --Batard0 (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose (Symbol support vote.svg) 1b. MoS (Symbol support vote.svg) 2a. ref layout (Symbol support vote.svg) 2b. cites WP:RS (Symbol support vote.svg) 2c. no WP:OR (Symbol support vote.svg) 3a. broadness (Symbol support vote.svg)
3b. focus (Symbol support vote.svg) 4. neutral (Symbol support vote.svg) 5. stable (Symbol support vote.svg) 6a. free or tagged images (Symbol support vote.svg) 6b. pics relevant (Symbol support vote.svg)
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked Symbol comment.png are unassessed


  • It might be better to say "He previously played" instead of "He played" in the second sentence, just to be absolutely clear that this was prior to his stint with the Eagles.
  • In this sentence: "He became the first African-American quarterback to be selected first overall in an NFL Draft." I suggest something a little shorter. It feels like we're repeating the material in the previous sentence to an extent. Maybe: "He was the first African-American quarterback to be taken in that position." Another option might be combining the sentences into something like: "He left after his sophomore year and became the first African-American quarterback to be taken first overall in the NFL draft when the Atlanta Falcons selected him in 2001."
  • I'd consider moving the following sentence to near the end of the lead, perhaps at the end of the next-to-last paragraph. This is a career stat, and we're not yet done describing his whole career. Did he set the record while with the Falcons? If that's the case perhaps we should keep it where it is, but say that he set the record when with the Falcons. It may also make sense here to describe what set him apart more precisely, maybe something like: "In six seasons with the Falcons, he gained wide popularity for his ability to rush for large gains, setting him apart from quarterbacks who relied more heavily on passing. He led the Falcons to the playoffs twice and set a career record among quarterbacks for rushing yards in XYZ year"

More to come... --Batard0 (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I'd suggest instead of "over five years" we say "for five years"; the latter establishes the timeline a little more clearly to me.
  • Instead of "With the loss" I'd recommend being slightly more specific and saying "Hurt financially by the loss"
  • In "and after attempts to trade him failed, Vick was released" I'd suggest saying "and Vick was released after attempts to trade him failed" simply because this flows a little more smoothly without the extra comma. Not a big deal either way, obviously.
  • Wikilink 2011 NFL playoffs and NFC East, both of which have articles.
  • "QB rating" --> "quarterback rating". Also wikilink this to passer rating.
  • Wikilink Pro Bowl.
  • We might mention that he made it to three Pro Bowls while with the Falcons in the paragraph where we talk about his Falcons career. That sets up the mention of his fourth Pro Bowl at the end of the lead quite nicely.
  • I'd merge the final sentence of the lead into the fourth paragraph. In any event, the MoS discourages leads of more than four paragraphs.

This is looking good so far. I'm a notorious nitpicker; these are all minor things.

Early years

  • At the end of the first paragraph, I'd suggest: "Local people interviewed in a 2007 Richmond Times-Dispatch article said "not much changed" about the place almost ten years after Michael Vick left." This is a little more concise and reads a bit more clearly, at least to me.
  • I'd suggest "and suggested" instead of "then suggested"
  • I'd join the sentence about Vick going fishing into the previous paragraph. --Batard0 (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Early athletic career

  • I'd recommend shortening the first sentence to the following: "Michael Boddie's job involved a lot of travel, but he taught football skills to his two sons at an early age." I don't think we need the bit at the beginning about the early years of the family since we say at the end that he taught them "at an early age".
  • "He taught younger brother Marcus Vick." Here I assume we're saying Michael taught his younger brother, right? If so, I'd recommend saying "Michael" or "The young Michael" instead of "He".
  • In the bit about Brooks, could we say "also learned about football" or "learned more about football" instead of just "learned about", since we say he also learned from his father? I'd also suggest a slight rewording of this bit for clarity to: "also learned about football from Aaron Brooks, a second cousin four years older."
  • I don't completely get why throwing three TD passes would merit special attention from coaches and parents. Wouldn't that be pretty normal? Or was his general athletic ability noticed?
  • I'd suggest merging the final sentence into the previous paragraph and reordering it as follows: "Sports kept me off the streets," Vick told Sporting News magazine in an interview published April 9, 2001. "It kept me from getting into what was going on, the bad stuff. Lots of guys I knew have had bad problems."

High school

  • Instead of "athletic ability, throwing", I'd suggest "athletic ability and threw" for clarity's sake.
  • This could use a little clarification: "Vick, as a sophomore, and Tommy Reamon both moved to Warwick High School" Are we saying: "Vick moved to Warwick High School as a sophomore along with his high school football coach, Tommy Reamon"? If so, let's say that.
  • I'd suggest a slight reordering of the first sentence of the second paragraph to: "Vick was a three-year starter for the Warwick Raiders under Reamon's tutelage, passing for 4,846 yards with 43 touchdowns."
  • I also suggest moving the sentence "He ran for six touchdowns and threw for three touchdowns in a single game." to the end and rephrasing it a little, so we'd have: "He added 1,048 yards and 18 scores on the ground. As a senior, he passed for 1,668 yards with ten passing and ten rushing touchdowns. In one game in XYZ year, he ran for six touchdowns and threw for three more."
    • Yes check.svg Done to this point; all the time I have for now. Go Phightins! 20:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Are the any citations for the first two paragraphs of the high school section? We will also need one at the end of the early athletic career section, as it ends with a quote from an article.
  • The link on footnote #12 is dead. I'd also recommend not using quotes in the first sentence of the last paragraph of this section, because it's apparently just an article. I'd go with something like: "As he left the Newport News public housing projects in 1998 with a college scholarship in hand, Vick was seen in the community as a success."
  • I'd remove this sentence, because I don't think it adds anything substantial to our understanding of Vick's early life: "In a story published in September 2000, while Vick was at Virginia Tech, Michael Boddie told the university's Collegiate Times: "Ever since he learned to throw a football, he's always liked throwing a ball...It's just in his blood."" I would also suggest merging the previous sentence into the paragraph before it. --Batard0 (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

College career

  • The first two paragraphs of this section and the fourth paragraph are uncited. It'd be good to have some sourcing here.
  • I was a little bit confused re: the second sentence when I first read it, but then I got it upon a second reading. Perhaps we could rephrase it a little to clear things up, maybe like: "He made a spectacular flip to score his last touchdown but landed awkwardly on his ankle, forcing him to miss the remainder of the game and all of the following game."
  • I'd recommend "Later in the season" instead of "During the season" to start the third sentence; this gives the narrative a sense of continuation beyond the injury.
  • Suggest replacing "an 11–0 season" with "an 11–0 win-loss record" (Brits and others unfamiliar with the sport often say this is how we should do it, and they're probably right; best to be as accessible as possible.
  • Recommend "Vick brought the team back" instead of "Vick was able to bring the team back" for conciseness.
  • In the first sentence of the second para, I recommend saying "1999" instead of "that year" just in case readers don't remember from the first para.
  • "a record for a freshman (180.4), which was good enough for the third-highest all-time mark." can be shortened to "a record for a freshman (180.4) and the third-highest all-time mark."
  • "Vick was awarded an ESPY Award" --> "Vick won an ESPY Award" is shorter and says the same thing. I know we repeat "won" again later in the sentence, but readers won't mind this.
  • "Vick's third place finish" --> "Vick's third-place finish". Compound adjectives take hyphens.
  • In "highest finish ever" remove "finish" since we've already said that.
  • "Vick's 2000 season had highlights, such as his career rushing high of 210 yards against the Boston College in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts." This is probably better phrased as "One highlight of Vick's 2000 season was a career rushing high of 210 yards against Boston College in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts."
  • I think "The following week, Vick led the Hokies from a 14–0 deficit against Syracuse" should be "The following week, Vick led the Hokies back from a 14–0 deficit to beat Syracuse". This makes clear early on that he led the team back to win. --Batard0 (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The sentence that starts "The following game against Pittsburgh" feels a little long. I'd suggest a rephrase into two sentences like: "Vick was injured the following week against Pittsburgh and was taken out of the game. He remained inactive for games against Central Florida and the Miami Hurricanes, who handed the Hokies their lone loss of the season." This also ends up being a little more concise.
  • I'd suggest a slight rephrase of "Vick's final game at Virginia Tech came against the Clemson Tigers in the Toyota Gator Bowl, where he was named MVP of the game." to "Vick's final game at Virginia Tech was against the Clemson Tigers in the Toyota Gator Bowl; Virginia Tech won and Vick was named the game's MVP." I'm assuming VT won the game.
  • I'd change "their 3 bedroom apartment" to "their three-bedroom apartment". At minimum, we should have a hyphen between the number and "bedroom" since it's a compound adjective modifying "apartment".
  • "Vick stated that he was" --> "Vick said he was" says the same thing and is shorter. This sentence should have a citation after it, since it ends with a quote.
  • I'd suggest renaming the "Statistics" section "College statistics" just for clarity. It would also be good if these stats were sourced. One way to do it is by adding a new column at the bottom where you put "Source: (whatever the source is)". Some people like to use a regular citation. Whatever you like is fine with me.
  • This section--Yes check.svg Done

Atlanta Falcons

  • I'd remove "an astonishing" from the first sentence. It's somewhat unencyclopedic, I think.
  • This bit: "the fastest 40 time of any quarterback ever in the NFL" could be "the fastest-ever for a NFL quarterback." It's more concise and says the same thing; we needn't repeat "40 time"; it should be clear to readers what we're referring to.
  • In this part: "had the number one selection but traded the rights to the first overall choice to the Atlanta Falcons" we can remove the repeated reference to the first pick, for example like: "had the number-one selection but traded it to the Atlanta Falcons". Note that "number-one" should be hyphenated because it's a compound adjective modifying "selection".
  • "first round pick" and "third round pick" should be "first-round pick" and "third-round pick". Same compound adjectives issue.
  • There's a citation needed tag on the bit about Vick's selection in the MLB draft. Any chance we could find a citation for that? --Batard0 (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This sentence looks like it was accidentally inserted at the beginning of the section, but belongs elsewhere: "Vick and teammate RB Warrick Dunn (1,140) became the first quarterback/running back duo to each surpass 1,000 rushing yards in a single season."
  • At this point, I'm going to do things a little differently because I'm noticing that there are a lot of nitpicking suggestions on grammar and phrasing. I think it'll be more efficient if I edit the article directly and then invite you to revert and discuss if there are any disagreements. I'll leave the above things for you to fix, but will handle the Atlanta Falcons et seq myself. I'll list here only the issues that go beyond copyediting. --Batard0 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I recommend switching out the refs in the first paragraph of this section. Twitter isn't a reliable source; I assume this was reported by newspapers, etc. --Batard0 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The remainder of the section lacks citations. We should have at minimum a citation at the end of each paragraph, but preferably something supporting each fact. It's not required, but unsourced material can be removed, especially in a BLP. I doubt sources would be tough to find for a person of Vick's prominence.--Batard0 (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've now made copyedits through the fifth paragraph of the Falcons section. That section, however, covers only 2001 through 2004; there's no information about what he and the Falcons did in 2005, 2006 or 2007. This needs to be in there. If it's unremarkable it can be brief, but it looks like he at least had a Pro Bowl year in 2006. I left the sentence about Vick and Dunn at the end of this section, because I assume this applies to one of the missing seasons.
    • Working on poring through the Google News Archives, but right now, I have to run; I'll try to keep working on this later tonight. Thanks for the suggestions. Go Phightins! 00:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


  • I've made some copyedits here, but it looks good.

Philadelphia Eagles

  • I'm in this section now, down through the fifth paragraph. Looks pretty good so far. --Batard0 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've finished copyediting this section. It looks ok, generally, but it'd be good to have more information on the 2011 season and also maybe the offseason and first part of the 2012 season. We should also have a source for the regular season and playoff statistics, as with the college section. --Batard0 (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Information on 2012 season Crystal Clear action edit add.png Added. Go Phightins! 19:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Early controversies and crimes

  • Getting started on the copyediting here. --Batard0 (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm done with this section now. No problems here.

Dog fighting investigations

  • The first para has a citation needed tag, and certainly does need a citation, given that it's about criminal investigations. --Batard0 (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Federal prosecution and conviction

  • I combined a few sections here because they were each just a paragraph long for the most part; I don't think it's necessary to have subheadings every significant step of the way.
  • First para of this section has a legit citation needed tag.
  • We'll have to source this section thoroughly. Anything about legal proceedings could easily be challenged or contentious, so it's important to beef up the citations. I'd recommend having a citation after every sentence.

State prosecution and sentencing

  • Ok, nothing major here.

Political activity

  • This needs some cleaning up and expanding, potentially. We don't have the context surrounding Vick's support for this bill, nor around the comment calling for Vick to be executed.

Financial troubles

  • The first paragraph needs some elucidation. We don't say when he was facing a $45 million lawsuit, and the context surrounding him losing endorsement deals...

Major financial obligations

  • I'm through this now -- it also needs better sourcing in places. There are some dead links in there that should be repaired.

Early proceedings

  • Finished this section now. It also needs more references. All this legal/bankruptcy stuff should be carefully referenced, I think. We should also stay away from primary sources like court papers, etc.

Reorganization plan

  • Finished this. The sourcing issues are similar, although this one is slightly better than some of the others.

Awards, records, and accomplishments

  • This section is sort of random and wholly uncited. I'd recommend having the relevant highlights in the infobox and integrated into the text where we describe his football career. I don't think there's a need for a list in the middle of the article like this.
    • Integrated into article and removed listing of in-season accomplishments. Go Phightins! 03:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


  • Finished going through this section. Looks fine.

Charitable foundations

  • Went through it and this looks ok...nothing major.

Documentary series

  • This is just two sentences and probably shouldn't have its own section. --Batard0 (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Crystal Clear action edit remove.png Removed it entirely; I don't even think it's worth mentioning to begin with. Go Phightins! 02:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The way forward

  • I've gone through and done the copyedits. Once you're done with the issues above, let's discuss what we need to do next. I want to propose a major restructuring after we have all the basic elements in place, because I think the article is a bit disjointed at the moment. There's too much separation between his football career and his legal troubles; they're presented as separate narratives in the article when in fact they're closely interlinked in many ways. Keeping them separate creates confusion, I think, and we end up essentially reading the same story a few different times through a few different lenses. First we get his athletic career, then we get the dogfighting charges that interrupted his athletic career, then we get his financial difficulties that he continues to confront as his athletic career goes on. I want to propose a three-step process, and I'm happy to help out. I think we should:

1) Put in missing information about the end of his Falcons career and the latest developments in his Eagles career. Once that's in place, we'll have the basic elements of his football career all in the article.

2) Reorganize the article into six main parts: 1) his early life (keep what we have because it's fine), 2) his college career (keep this too), 3) his Atlanta Falcons career, integrating any legal trouble that preceded his suspension and criminal charges, 4) his suspension and dogfighting charges -- this will cover his imprisonment and the time he spent out of the league, 5) his financial difficulties -- this takes care of the financial difficulties he faced while in jail and after he got out, including his bankruptcy and 6) his return to professional football with the Eagles. This will include some of the financial difficulties that didn't get resolved until he began playing in the NFL again. After all of this, we may have a section on career statistics; we could also have a personal life section.

3) Once all of this is in place, we then take a thorough look at sourcing, paying special attention to any legal matters and quotes. At that point, it should be in pretty good shape if all goes well.

What do you think about this idea? I'm open to doing it differently if you like, but however we do it I think it's important to bring the article together into one coherent whole instead of a few disjointed pieces. --Batard0 (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like, I'm also perfectly happy not to do such a major reworking of it if you don't have time for it at the moment. I think once all the relevant info is in there about his Falcons and Eagles career and once it's well-cited we'll be at the GA threshold. We can stop there if you want. Just let me know. Anyway, I'm happy to wait for however long is needed. It's not an issue at all. --Batard0 (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm open to the reworking, let me just finish the other suggestions. I'll try to have them done in the next couple of days. Go Phightins! 13:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've made some additional edits -- mostly copyedits and such, but I also added some sources. I think it's in OK shape at the moment, and I'm glad to see the missing info on the later Falcons and Eagles seasons has been filled in. The only major and important thing that remains to be done is to ensure that the sections on legal and financial troubles are fully sourced. I think it's critical to have sources for absolutely everything here, because these things are inherently contentious and could be challenged. There are at least a couple things that aren't sourced, like the last sentence of the second paragraph of the "State prosecution and sentencing" section and the end of the first paragraph of the Financial troubles section. --Batard0 (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  • What's left to do on this article? From the comments above, it was very close to ready a little over a week ago, and there were clusters of edits later that day and on the 28th. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It looks like sourcing requested in the final bit has been added. Hence I think it now passes and I'm listing it. --Batard0 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2013[edit]

On January 23, 2010, steroid trafficker David Jacobs told The Dallas Morning News that he supplied steroids to Vick while Vick played for the Falcons. When questioned by federal agents and prosecutors, Vick denied the allegations.[4]

"It says here David Jacobs talked to the Dallas Morning News in 2010, but on 'David Jacobs' page it says he was discovered dead in 2008. I'm not sure which page needs to be fixed but there you go."

Edit Request[edit]

The section titled "Early Years" has a minor grammatical error.

His mother worked two job, obtained public financial assistance and had help from her parents, while his father worked long hours in the shipyards as a sandblaster and spray-painter.

should be "His mother worked two jobs...."

- Azaleaa

Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on January 3, 2014[edit]

Playoff statistics are incorrect, the sum of completions should be 79, not 89, and the rating should be 78. Refer to — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

what about him being a dog fighter cause I've not forgot — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014[edit]

Edit Michael Vick image to current image from August 8, 2014. Image Link (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as the image appears to be copyright, so we cannot use it; unless the original photographer uploads the picture and relinquishes their copyright - Arjayay (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


multiple categories hinting towards the "criminal" lifestyle of michael vick make the article seem quite biased. as i am neither a fan of any team vick has played for nor a football fan in general, i felt that reading this article as a whole, it was written in a non-neutral tone. while the athlete is a convict, multiple overlapping categories and references seems as overkill. "American people convicted of cruelty to animals", "Animal cruelty incidents" and "21st-century American criminals" could easily be condensed into "21st-century American criminals", which covers the overall time and place of the incident, further information given on the page the link directs to. further information should be looked up on an online-database about criminals.

Zerochuckdude (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the incident category. He does belong in the relevant categories for people. LadyofShalott 20:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Bonuses Repayment[edit]

There is no mention of the appeal that Vick won to lessen the amount he had to repay to only about $3.75 million. [5]

Leed Paragraph: race, position, draft statistic[edit]

I don't see the relevance or necessity for the statistic (in bold): "... was drafted first overall by the Atlanta Falcons in the 2001 NFL Draft, the first African-American quarterback ever taken in that position"

Given the decade and race-ratios of American Football at that time, it is unnecessary. If it were a minority race in the sport with a history of not playing a certain role, I could see the point. I don't see the need to track all the races and the draft numbers for each position. Other editors have claimed the article is too long. This would be a small thing to take out.

Carlosfhernandez (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

African American quarterbacks are still relatively rare (and were moreso 15 years ago) and that seems like it is still a meaningful distinction. For example, when Russell Wilson won the Super Bowl, the media made a big deal over it.[1][2][3] --B (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)