Talk:Dick Butkus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 20:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer Comments

I have completed an initial read of the article. I will be going back through and more thoroughly reading the article and leaving comments/thoughts/suggestions. This will likely take me several weekdays to complete. I will add new comments below. This is only my fourth review (and first WP:BLP) so please bear with me as we go through this process. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• Renown is WP:Puffery. Suggest "Butkus is regarded as a fierce tackler and for the relentless effort with which he played and one of the greatest and most intimidating linebackers in pro football history."

• I respectfully disagree; I don't believe this is a case of puffery, as "renown" is being used in this case as a descriptor the same way "regarded" would be used in your suggestion. Puffery is mainly as issue of vagueness rather than word choice, when they neither impart nor plainly summarize verifiable information.

 Done

• I will admit this is somewhat nitpicky but the Pompeii article suggests that Butkus's playing career started on the sandlots not at Chicago Vocational.

• Hmm. I wouldn't really consider that part of his career.

This is too minor to get into any sort of long discussion about but given historical time period where it wouldn't be unusual for someone to start playing in HS I think it is interesting he played prior to that. But I consider this point  Done either way since it's a minor thing.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• The Deacon Jones quote is sourced later on but because it's a quote needs to be sourced in the Lead as well.

 Done

College career

• Can any more context for his defensive play be given here other than his list of tackles?

• Unfortunately defensive stats are scant for the time period. I did find a good quote by an SI writer though.

Good quote.  Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Speaking of the list of tackles I'm not sure how much is gained listing amounts by year rather than just cumulative amount.

• Cumulative amount is also listed. As I said, defensive stats were rarely kept during this time. Especially not tackles. So this makes the info pretty invaluable.

Could you explain why it's invaluable? I get that there isn't a lot else to go on but not sure the right remedy is to make a stats list. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Professional Career

• According to what I can see in the linked source it was six not 7 credited fumbles (plus the 6 uncredited forced fumbles)

 Done So it was.

• Not sure a range of 80 - 100 (as source says) can be failry characterized as 100k

 Done Fair point.

• You mention a couple of notable Defensive Player of the Week; is there a total for how many he won?

• I was able to find at least 4 from searching.

 Done

• What was the reception for Stop-action by critics? Any information on sales or other measures of its commercial success (or not)?

• I don't think it really received any critical attention. Just caused a lot of stir. And to be honest I'd rather not add any more to this part since it's already the largest paragraph in the article, which I'm not sure it deserves.

I hear you on proportion but don't know that the extended Lions anecdote is the right bit to include for a book. If that's really all that's out there, I suppose it's fine but would suggest that while interesting/illuminating that what's in the paragraph now might not be the most encyclopedic bit that could be there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Profile and reputation

• Suggest rewording of sentence to, "When asked by a reporter if he was mean as the rumors suggested, he replied, "I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately. Unless it was, you know, important—like a league game or something."[56] (could keep the not so mean if desired)

 Done

• Suggest rewording "Although not an official statistic at the time, it has been noted that Butkus would certainly be one of the all-time leaders in the forced fumbles category."

 Done

Film and television career

• Suggest flipping this section with the next section to keep his football related stuff more together.

 Done

• Suggest deleting BBDO mention for ad. If not probably should be linked.

 Done Yeah it is pretty trivial. Removed.

• Is there anything else on his endorsements? The context from what is written is that he hasn't done much. Is that accurate?

Added a few more endorsements.

 Done

Legacy and honors

• Suggest crediting Wilson with saying Singeltary set the benchmark for Bears MLB

Who is Wilson and where does he say this?

 Done I can't figure out what I was referring to here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest changing "Butkus is consistently ranked" to "Butkus has been repeatedly ranked" or "Butkus was ranked" to be slightly less editorializing

 Done

• Is there a reason to say who judged the NFL 75th anniversary team?

Context. The NFL rarely hands out officially sanctioned awards/honors. It's usually left entirely to media organizations.

 Done To me the relevant context is the NFL doing it not outside group but defer to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I note Stallone gets more play than the NFL 75th Anniversary team (among others)

Good point, trimmed a bit.

 Done

• Should probably note that Orlando Downtown Club no longer administers Butkus award. This even suggests some controversy around it.

 Done Noted.

Personal and Later Life

• This section feels less polished and complete than the others.

• I've done all I could. There just isn't much else noteworthy I could find

• Section needs an overall summary in first sentence.

 Done

• Should probably start with his wife and kids, then mention where he retired to. I think his home surviving the fire is borderline notable but if included this reorganization helps it.

• Removed mention of fire.

• Awkward to introduce I Play Clean here in relation to Matt

 Done

• Speaking of which I discovered Ian Parish, Butkus' grandson, plays volleyball for UCLA (or did at least). Include if you think notable

 Done Noted.

• Not sure we need Luke's complete job history needs noting

 Done Condensed.

• Some quick Googling suggests Butkus has done some efforts to make football safer from concussions. Especially given his reputation this feels worthy of inclusion.

• I couldn't really find much on concussions, but I did find an editorial he did for USA Today talking about the risks and benefits of football.

Admittedly, writing about personal details isn't my forte. I'll try to get to it and flesh it out sometime this week. Lizard (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• I did a quick look but couldn't find why some sources had 25 fumbles. Is there any explanation for that? This is just my curiosity as the note meets GA standards.

• Likely the result of unreliable stat-keeping at the time.

• Is there a particular reasoning for having a separate bibliography or can this be merged with references?

• It's how I usually do it.

This completes my readthrough. Will be checking for other elements of the GA standards at a later time/date.

Finally decided to get off my butt and finish this. I believe that's everything. Thank you for the thorough review. Lizard (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Other GA Elements

• No major link, disambig, or copyright issues. If of interest found [1] which could be used for further picture perhaps in professional career or profile and reputation. Not strictly necessary for GA Review.