Talk:Dual-threat quarterback/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Soulbust (talk · contribs) 23:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kimikel (talk · contribs)
Hello, I'm going to be doing this review as part of the July GA backlog drive. It should take me no longer than a week. Kimikel (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Soulbust: Below is the first half of my review. I'm going to go through the sources tomorrow. If you think you can address all of these issues within the next 7 days or so let me know; if not, I'll close the review, and you can leave a message on my talk page whenever they are finished, and I promise I'll do a second review. Regardless, just let me know what you think, or if you have any questions - Kimikel (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Also just let me know if you need more time. Kimikel (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

    @Soulbust It's been a while since any changes have been made on the article, is it ready for review? Kimikel (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

    I am unsure. I think I'd like to add more, but in the meantime I did add information relating to dual-threats in college and the CFL. Because of this, I think the Criticism of term's racial connotation section shouldn't be rolled into the History in the NFL section, because it also relates to college football history, since college prospects get tagged as dual-threats during recruiting.

    But yeah let me know if the new college and CFL info is suffice, or if you think there should be more added. I think it'd probably be easier to find/add more info about college dual-threats. Soulbust (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

    @Soulbust Sorry for the delay in response. Looked over what you had briefly, and it looks good. I would say a little bit of history throughout the 20th century for college dual threats would be nice; if you can add that I'll review it more thoroughly and then that should be it. Thank you for the work you've done so far! Kimikel (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

    @Soulbust Hello, how's it going? It has been two weeks since an edit; the article still doesn't cover dual-threat qbs in the NCAA before 2000, which is an issue in broadness, especially since the lede suggests that they "have historically been more prolific at the college level" and that it was adopted in the nfl later on. Since this review is now about a month and a half old, I'm considering closing this as a fail to allow you the chance to add all of that whenever you get around to it and resubmit it, and I can give it a re-review then. If you object to that please let me know, but otherwise, if no work is done in the very near future, i'll probably end up doing so. Just let me know what you think, thank you. Kimikel (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

    @Kimikel: I'll look for information on the pre-2000 NCAA dual-threats in the next day. I'll see if that information can help justify the lede, and if it doesn't, I'll rework the lede to better reflect the body. Thank you.

    Soulbust (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

    @Kimikel I've tweaked the lede and added information + sources to the college football section. I believe the article should be good for the GA criteria now but let me know if there are any more loose ends. And thank you for all your help with the GA process. Soulbust (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    @Soulbust I'm very sorry but I've been busy preparing to fly overseas the last couple days and I fly out today. If you don't mind waiting I'll be back in a couple weeks and will finish the review ASAP, if not I wouldn't mind if you found another reviewer during that time to close it out. Thank you for your work and I'm sure whether by me or by someone else it will be approved soon. Kimikel (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

    @Kimikel: All good. I don't mind waiting a couple more weeks. I'll see if there are any additions or tweaks I can make in the meantime. Thanks again for your help with the review and safe travels, Soulbust (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Soulbust: Thank you for your patience. A few more small things before I approve it for GA (I know, I'm sorry):

1. "As a result, quarterbacks became distinct passers of the football, whereas halfbacks would absorb much of the run play responsibilities on a team." needs citation
2. "Limited by injuries during the middle part of his career, Grogan would transition to a more traditional pocket-passer-by the mid-1980s." needs citation

Well-written

Lead section

• The main issue with the lead section is that it contains a lot of information that is not cited or mentioned anywhere else in the article. Almost the entire second paragraph of the lead is completely unrelated to anything else in the article, as the article pretty much only talks about NFL QBs and not college QBs. You ought to go through and either remove everything from the lead that isn't in the actual article or add all of them into the article itself.

Over the next few days, I will see what I find (or if I can find) information regarding Dual-threats in college and in the CFL. If I can't find anything perhaps we should maybe rename this article as "Dual-threat quarterbacks in the NFL" and have Dual-threat quarterback be a more broad article akin to Game manager or System quarterback, or perhaps as a redirect to Quarterback#Dual-threat quarterbacks. Though, given the topic I think I will be able to find information regarding dual-threats in college/the CFL. Soulbust (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Pre-modern era

• "as such the" > as such, the
• "if not more likely"> if not more, likely
• "However, they would" > They would
• "as coaches adopted new strategies to take advantage of players with unique physical attributes and skills — all in the name of trying to gain an edge on their opponents." > I feel as though this quote is not necessary and this info could be summarized.

 Done the first 4 bullets have been addressed. I tweaked the quote to be more summarizing in nature. Soulbust (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "As a result, quarterbacks..." > needs citation

Early history

• "The next decade, however," > The next decade
• "Tarkenton adds by describing the reaction to his scrambling at the time, "It was not a skill set that was embraced. Plenty of people mocked it, and the rest wrote it off."" > Tarkenton described scrambling as "not a skill set that was embraced. Plenty of people mocked it, and the rest wrote it off.
• "—in which he became the first quarterback to pass for over 2,000 yards and rush for over 500 yards in the same season—"> replace dashes with commas
• "as he logged" > logging
• "wild schemes, before" > unusual schemes for him before
• "leading to his" > which led to his
• "539 yards, on a team" > 539 yards
• "which was held" > which stood

 Done Except for 539 yards bullet. the ", on a team" section is necessary here since it is referring to how the Patriots team itself also set a record. Unless you would suggest for that to be removed. Soulbust (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Soulbust My mistake, for that one I just meant to remove the comma so it read "539 yards on a team", sorry Kimikel (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah gotcha. Fixed that one now then. Soulbust (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Increased frequency

• "writes that, although," > wrote that although
• "by a QB but make no mistake about it, if you are" > by a QB...if you are
• "adding that, Young," > adding that Young
• "writes, "True, Steve Young" > wrote that "Steve Young
• "in which Griffin III would" > who would
• " plays -- not" plays—not
• "Kordell Stewart," > remove comma
• "5 Super Bowls" > five Super Bowls

 Done Though I tweaked the CraveOnline quote about Young beyond your suggestions. I think it has a bit of a better flow this way, but let me know. Soulbust (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Michael Vick effect

• "John Elway" > Elway
• "McNabb became joined" > McNabb joined
• "as Ray Buchanan stated" > with Ray Buchanan stating
• mobile right now," > mobile right now";
• "Michael Vick, and in addition to that, McNabb also mentored Vick" Michael Vick; he also mentored Vick
• "Vick also served" > Vick served
• "by Atlanta Falcons" > by the Atlanta Falcons

 Done and I did some extra tweaking to McNabb's quote/response to Buchanan. Also did tweaking on his connection to Vick Soulbust (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Newfound implementations

• "labeled, "symbolic" > labeled "symbolic
• "This status came" > This came

 Done Soulbust (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Introduction of RPO

• "have continued to rise" > continued to rise
• combine last two paragraphs, as they're both pretty small by themselves.

 Done Soulbust (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

• See Wikipedia:Criticism, I think this section should be rolled into the previous one, with a header like "Racial connotation"
• "quarterbacks while still" > quarterbacks, while still
  •  Done Soulbust (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Broad

• This article is very NFL-centric and doesn't really make any reference to dual threat QBs at the college level, or in the CFL.

Neutral

• No issues with neutrality

Images

• Images fine

Stable

• Stable

Verifiable: Source spotcheck

1. 22: Verified for the Ravens record. However, none of the Grogan career stuff is mentioned in here, so all of the facts about Grogan are unsourced. New source should be introduced here that corroborates the facts about Grogan.
2. 30: Verified
3. 58: Verified
4. 70: Verified
5. 84: Verified

• 2, 25, 73 missing author

 Done Fixed missing authors Soulbust (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Status query

Kimikel, Soulbust, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, the last ping of Soulbust just above the "Well-Written" section on October 2 wouldn't have gone through because the post didn't have a sig (pings only work if a valid sig is included in the comment); I hope this gets the review moving again. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi I didn't see those comments previously. I will try to look for sources for those sentences within the next week, if not couple of days. Soulbust (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Soulbust: any update? Kimikel (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Soulbust: this needs to be fixed if the article is to pass. i'd like to keep this review from taking more than 3 months. Kimikel (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Closing this review due to inactivity. I pointed out the lack of citations on those sentences about a month ago, and there has been no meaningful edit on the page since then. Kimikel (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.