Wikipedia:Peer review/History of the New York Jets/archive2

History of the New York Jets

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…after initially failing to bring this article to FA status, extensive renovations have been made however Wehwalt and I would like any additional feedback before we take it to FAC.

Thanks, The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 21:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Looks better, I'm a little jealous because it looks like you're going to beat me to the punch and have the first NFL history FA. Some preliminary notes (I may look more later):

• See WP:PLUSING; a reading of that could improve the article, especially as concerns the word "with". You can just use the google highlight function to help fix that. Sometimes the word is ok, but like Tony says in that piece it can be ambiguous.
• Its good that you incorporated "New York" in place of just referring to the team as the Jets, which fan editors normally do out of habit, as this gives the article more of a neutral tone. But I would even use it a little more, it instantly increases the perceived neutrality of the article because you'll never hear a fan refer to his team that way. Don't get redundant with it but a little more imho. Also, when you do its better to refer to the opposing team by their city as well. "New York beat Chicago" sounds more fluid and consistent than "New York beat the Bears". Also one is plural and one is singular so there's a discord. If you have to say the full name like when you're saying the team for the first time, I would stick with the Jets that way both are plural. "The Jets beat the Denver Broncos" sounds better than the "New York beat the Denver Broncos".
• In general try to tighten writing and avoid repetitiveness. In sentences like this "In spite of these departures, the Jets managed to finish with a 8–7–1 record." I would just shorten the last half to "the Jets finished 8–7–1." And here: "Jimmy the Greek predicted the Jets would go to the Super Bowl in 1980, but the Jets' record fell to 4–12 by the end of the season." This one: "but they ended the season 4–12." Especially since you don't have to say "Jets" twice in one sentence in that example, and the other changes tighten the wording. I am aware you have to alternate the phraseology to avoid repetitiveness, but anytime there are too many needless words I don't think its worth it.
• "After a strong performance by rookie quarterback Browning Nagle in the team's 5–0 1992 preseason, Coslet chose him as the Jets starting quarterback." The ending could be "Coslet promoted him to the starting lineup." That way you don't say quarterback twice in the same sentence.
• "legendary quarterback Johnny Unitas" "Hall of Fame" might be better than legendary, even though legendary is true in this case. People get annoyed by descriptive terms even if they're true at FAC.
• Cimini's theory about Thomas is not the accepted general opinion of him. I know its sourced but I would not include it personally.

• In a sense sports articles are very hard to write in that you have to repeat the same kind of info over and over again without sounding repetitive. Every other sentence has records, division standings, game scores, or playoff results. When I work on other kinds of articles I find them a lot easier to write tbh. Just be sure to take to look at each sentence in comparison to the ones surrounding it for repetitive words or phrases. If I have time later I might try to help, but I'm not really an expert myself. AaronY (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Aaron. I would be grateful for guidance from all reviewers on the use of sports idiom in the article. As you may know, we had an objection from an Australian cricket fan, and I'll quote " Some examples from the Lead include, "the Jets made the playoffs" – I assume this means the Jets reached the playoff stage of the competition. And does "blowing a ten-point fourth quarter lead" mean "despite having achieved.."? " Now, those comments were made I believe in good faith. It is easy to smile at this, but the fact is that this and similar comments cost us our first shot at FA, and it is symptomatic of the audience we have to play to. Thoughts on gearing the article to the sensibilities of the reviewers would especially be welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)