Talk:Vince Young/Archive 1

Archive 1

Post Draft

Revised wording of the section about lead-up to 2006 Draft to include more past-tense, now that the draft is over. J. Charles Taylor 05:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources for early 2005 Heisman hype

The following articles mentioned Vince Young as a preseason candidate for the 2005 Heisman Trophy.

• Niyo, John (4 August 2005). "Strike a pose". The Detroit News..
• Smith, Avery (5 July 2005). "2005 College Football Preview: Heisman 10". Sports Central.
• Crave Sports (2004-2005). Heisman Preview. Retrieved September 11, 2005.
• COMMENT - Please add his current academic status. Also when is his expected graduation date? Is he a Junior or a Senior? Family background? Draft notes? Comparable players?

I'm not sure the first 3 are public information (actually, I know in Texas they legally aren't public, but the NCAA may release them, I'm not sure). --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal

There should be a section dealing with his personal life. ie. His near involvement with street gangs, his mother raising him, his father's incarceration in jail...ect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.160.141.117 (talk • contribs)

Also, at the age of 8, he was hit by a car which for a time caused a speech impediment. I do believe this was corrected after regular visits with a speech therapist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.13 (talk • contribs)

Searches at Houston Chronicle and Google yielded no references for the following:

On January 9, 2005, the Houston Chronicle reported that Young is the father of a 6 month old girl. The mother, Lastisha Edwins, claims that Young is the father of Mercedes Edwins. Young has not denied or accepted the allegations.

jareha 04:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Leaving early

He is listed in this article as the second person to leave early during Brown's time at Texas. However, the previous athlete, Kwame Cavil, did not "leave early" as such, but was kicked off the team and was not even drafted in the NFL, though he did sign with the Bills. Should this be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.59.52 (talk • contribs)

I was just coming here to note that I had removed this, glad to see someone else saw this. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 06:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Cavil wasn't "kicked off the team," at least not in an independently verifiable way. He (and three other players) were suspended for the 2000 Cotton Bowl. From the referenced article in Sports Illustrated: Texas' Cavil puts name into NFL hat, Mack Brown says (in response to Cavil's decision to enter the draft) "Kwame has been a big part of our two years here, and I will always love him for who he is, and what he has done for Texas." He continues "we will miss him, but I respect his decision and wish him nothing but the best." This is ambiguous at best, but does suggest that Cavil would be a part of the team for the next season, if he had not left early.--Scbtex 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Scbtex. That same reference he cites also says "Texas coach Mack Brown said he never tells players what to do if they are considering entering the NFL draft early." That seems pretty clear that Brown lost Cavil to an early entry into the draft. Johntex\^talk 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Passing rating

Changed to read "third-rated passer." I don't know why everyone think's he was number one in this category, Christ, even the source cited for the proposition shows him as number three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.50.248 (talk • contribs)

Prior to the Rose Bowl, Young was the #1 rated Passing Efficiency QB in Division I. I dont know how the Rose Bowl affected that ranking. J. Charles Taylor 05:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Rose Bowl lowered his overall passing efficiency number below Brian Brohm of Louisville (Brohm didn't play in Louisville's bowl game). Also, Rudy Carpenter of Arizona State threw enough passes to qualify for the rankings. Previously he had not had enough pass attempts per game to meet the standard for inclusion. It would be accurate to state that Young finished the 2005 regular season as the #1 rated passer in the nation but fell to #3 after the bowl games. Airy Mesa 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither Louisville nor ASU had a championship game. How did the 70-3 slaughter of Colorado affect Vince's rating? I don't recall him throwing much in that game. Johntex\^talk 21:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Young had a very high passing efficiency against Colorado that raised his overall rating. His passing efficiency was 247.72 for the Big 12 Championship game. Airy Mesa 01:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

USC Two-Time Champions

Ok, the national champions of ncaa football is determined by the year-end rankings. Since the BSC was won by LSU that year, they won the coach's poll since the coaches are obligated to vote #1 whoever wins the BSC. However, the AP poll while not obligated takes the BSC into major consideration. USC won the AP poll. Therefore the title was split that year, that still makes USC the national champion, along with LSU. I see no reason that USC cannot be labled as the "two-time defending national champion." Apparently, some people who have edited have no idea how the national champion is decided. There is an article on wikipedia in case you are still unsure.

No, the BCS is the only official factor deciding a national championship. A dictionary should at least mention that USC's title was unofficial, not blindly stating "two-time". Please don't assume that people here don't understand. The AP was not the deciding factor, as USC agreed BEFORE the season that the BCS winner was the national champion. Since Oklahoma won a poll at the end of the 2003 season, should they also be crowned national champions? Or even better, USC won THREE polls in 2002, should they have been going for four in a row? No. The best way is to say, "defending BCS champion." Rmt2m 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What article do you mean? Rmt2m 00:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you are the one that is unsure. The national champion was split that year, so USC and LSU were the official champions.

Please sign your entries. First, I never said anyone was unsure, please read more carefully. Second, the title was not split that year, a single poll does not represent a split championship. Third, LSU did not share a title with anyone, as every team that participated in the 2003 season agreed beforehand that whoever won the Sugar Bowl would be the national champion. To say that USC won a national championship is simply revisionist bull. Rmt2m 01:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read this article before you decide what is official and what is not. I feel you are speaking because you do not understand how the champion is decided. Read this and you will see that the title was officially split NCAA Division I-A national football championship. colemangracie 02:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't prove anything. I understand that you think that a single poll gives credence to your claim. The fact is that it does not. The title was not "officialy" split because the AP poll was not the officially established measure for that season, regardless of prestige that the poll generates. Rmt2m 02:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that any controversy regarding the split of 2003 should really be non-existent as the BCS itself recognizes the split on its website under the discussion of the 2003 season.

I have seen that. All I am trying to do is keep the article accurate. If someone wants to put something about USC having won the AP in '03, that's fine with me. But "two-time defending champion is not accurate. Rmt2m 02:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From the BCS Official Site, "For the only time since the BCS was formed, there is a split national champion." Now, the BSC regards both LSU and USC as official champions of 2003. Colemangracie 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I said I've seen it. Rmt2m 12:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is a very interesting debate, and that this informaiton sould be included in the USC Trojans and Bowl Championship Series articles. However, I don't think we need to cover it here in an article about a player who was not in any way involved in the 2003 championship. For this article, mentioning that USC is the defending national champion is sufficient. That is a true statement regardless of whether they had won 1, 2, or 10 championships in a row. Johntex\^talk 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good. That should work well. Rmt2m 19:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Stating that they won against a two-time defending national champion, puts the victory more in context for the reader.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 10:07, 10 February 2006 (talk • contribs) 129.2.137.60.

• If USC was clearly the two-time defending champion, then sure, it would add a small smidgen of added interest to the article. But the downside of either (a) misleading people about the nature of USC's 2003 claim to the title or (b) explaining it fully here in an article that has very little to do with USC, is simply not worth it. VY and the rest of the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team were not playing the 2003 Trjoans. Johntex\^talk 17:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Question, how would it be "revisionist bull," if USC's share of the national title was immediately recognized as being official by the NCAA and BCS? Now to say that they had no claim to the 2003 national title would be revisionist.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.14 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous, please sign your posts. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 06:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a much different definition of "official." I have already addressed that. If you have quotes from the BCS and NCAA heads, put them up. Rmt2m 14:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I'm not defending the BCS as a system. Its not the best we can do. However, it is the method that each team that participates has agreed on, and so, it is the binding factor. Just as the NIT isn't it for college basketball, the AP isn't it for college football. Rmt2m 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Official, in my book means widely recognized. And most major publications such as SI and Espn regard it as official. Heck, USC is even listed in the 2006 World Almanac as national champions of 2003. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.137.66 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's possible for something to be widely recognized, yet unofficial, yes? Major media outlets acknowledging USC as champions does not make it official - only the official governing body can do that. Think Taiwan - the US treats Taiwan as a de facto independent nation state, but does not make an official recognition as such. Same thing at work here, I think. Ytny 20:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ytny, finally another voice of reason around here! Rmt2m 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is only one anonymous user that wants us to turn this article into a debate about who won the 2003 Championship. The fact that there are multiple IP addresses does not mean there are multiple people. The post "Official, in my book,.." was from an anonymous user who typed a non-existent user name for their signature. Using the page history, I have correctly attributed the remark to an IP address, which has only 2 edits on Wikipedia: on to this talk page, the other to the Vince Young article. Johntex\^talk 23:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even think of that. I was beginning to think that there were alot of little kids with computers around here who take everything Stuart Scott says as canon. Rmt2m 01:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that everyone refuting USC's claim to the 2003 national championship are hardcore Texas Longhorn fans by looking at their profiles. It is contrary to Wikipedia's policy to be biased.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 28 February 2006 129.2.137.72 (talk • contribs) 08:41, (UTC)

To the contrary, a neutral observer would expect that any pro-Texas bias would be in favor of claiming 2 championship wins for USC, as it would make the Longhorn's victory all the more impressive. The logical place to discuss who the 2003 national champion was is not this page. Whoever it was, it wasn't Texas, and Vince Young wasn't playing for them. Also, if you are so interested in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and community protocols, then please sign your posts. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 16:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wonderlic Score

An anonymous editor would like to characterize a score of 6 as "low". I think we need to follow WP:CITE and provide a reference for the claim that a Wonderlic Test score of 6 is considered "low". If anon finds one sportscaster or NFL coach, or someone else notable involved in football saying they consider a 6 to be "low" or that they would think twice about drafting someone who scored a 6 - then I think we could include their quote in the article. Other opinions? Johntex\^talk 17:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Here you go:

When informed of Young's test score, one NFL offensive coordinator said he no longer would consider drafting him.

"He could drop down to No. 10 or No. 15 in the draft," said a veteran NFL scout. "So those teams better be ready (in terms of evaluation)."

From the[1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.137.74 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That is definitely moving in the right direction, but it doesn't qualify as a reputable source because the source is not even named in the story. Please find a named, reputable, source. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 18:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And sign your posts. Rmt2m 20:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Also, in general, once we've added a well-sourced quote to the article, it would be nice to discuss it here prior to anyone deleting it. Someone has claimed that opinions do not belong on Wikipedia. Actually, well sourced opinions of notable persons with a relevant opinion on the topic are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is up to us to discuss them and make an editorial decision about whether they are notable or not. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 21:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For instance - I assert that the quote by Sean Jones is relevant here because he is directly involved in judging recruits for his NFL team. His comments were widely reported, including in the referenced source. Johntex\^talk 21:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Failed good article

.... was recently nominated to be promoted to good article status, but has unfortunately failed. Reasons for failing GA:

• Messy linkage in the intro (why is there an "its" in the link?)
• Don't put date/births in parenthesis, prose it paragraph
  • Expand "Personal", it's an important section, and is practically a stub
  • "High school career" should be retitled, prosed, and re-wrote.
  • Explain what a "letterwinner" is.
  • Explain what a " all-district performer" is.
  • Prose sections like this "(20+ points per game career average)" into the paragraph.
    • Give a quick definition of "redshirted", it seems important for it.
    • Explain what "6-1" refers me.
    • "He had a 6-1 record as a starter." should be merged into the previous sentence.
    • If terms such as "sophomore" and "freshman" are so intergral to Young's career, explain them, I'm not American so I'm rather lost.
    • Explain what the "Rose Bowl" is.
    • " regular season".. which would be?
    • Make that whole section non-football fan friendly, I can't understand it, and that's an automatic fail.
    • Prose the next TWO sections into paragraphs
      • Don't bulk up inline citation links
      • Make more non-football fan friendly again
        • Don't make notes about Notes!
        • Clean up External Links into one list

Confusing, listy and written by, for and about football fans. I'd ask for some out for help 12:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Could you un-indent your list? It'll make it easier to respond to each individual point. jareha ^(comments) 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Responses to review

"Don't put date/births in parenthesis, prose it paragraph"

• This is a misguided suggestion. See Wikipedia's policy for dates of birth and death. jareha ^(comments) 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm sure there are some good suggestions in the above, but my first reaction is that the reviewer was thrown off by not knowing about college football. An article on molecule can't explain everything there is to know about an atom, the car article is the wrong place to explain engine and wheel, and Vince Young is the wrong place to describe the game of college football. Johntex\^talk 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agree.

My analysis on the review:

Good points:

Messy linkage in the intro (why is there an "its" in the link?)

Don't put date/births in parenthesis, prose it paragraph

Expand "Personal", it's an important section, and is practically a stub

"High school career" should be retitled, prosed, and re-wrote.

Prose sections like this "(20+ points per game career average)" into the paragraph.

Give a quick definition of "redshirted", it seems important for it. non-football fan friendly, I can't understand it, and that's an automatic fail.

Prose the next TWO sections into paragraphs

Don't bulk up inline citation links

Make more non-football fan friendly again

Don't make notes about Notes!

Clean up External Links into one list

Questionable points:

Explain what a "letterwinner" is.

Explain what a " all-district performer" is.

Bad Points:

If terms such as "sophomore" and "freshman" are so intergral to Young's career, explain them, I'm not American so I'm rather lost. Explain what the "Rose Bowl" is.

" regular season".. which would be?

Explain what "6-1" refers me. "He had a 6-1 record as a starter." should be merged into the previous sentence.

Make that whole section non-football fan friendly again. I can understand it and that's an automatic fail.

Thoughts? I am part of a new project called WikiProject: NFL Rookies, a project aimed at getting people to "adopt" rookies articles and keep them up to date for as long as they are willing to participate, preferably at least up untill the next draft. Thanks. False Prophet 17:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I felt the color scheme in one of the graphs using a burnt orange was rather unnecessary for encyclopedic work. It was stats of his college career at Texas, this isn't a theme site. It's displaying information, while the color may be nice, I went ahead and changed it to something a bit more neutral. It should probably be changed again, but I feel it looks nicer on the page. --NeptuneMan 21:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinion, not fact

The last paragraph of the "Entering NFL Draft" is opinion and speculation. Besides, the wording is un-encyclopedia like. --Danmerqury 02:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll thin it down. I can't wait for the draft to be over so we can stop having to constantly police this article for opinion over test scores and draft rankings. Johntex\^talk 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Non-official" External Links?

I notice that all "non-official" external links were removed by user "Ytny" on 4/29/06.

Links removed were:

http://www.jcdenton40.com/VinceYoung.html

http://www.utexasclan.com/photos/videos.php

http://www.vy10.com/

As far as I can tell, all of the above links should be acceptable according to the Wikipedia guidelines located at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

If anyone can provide specific reasons these sites should NOT be included as external links, please do so. Otherwise, these sites should be restored to the article as legitimate external links.

After referencing the guidelines, I concur that it seems these links should be included. The jcdenton40.com and the utexasclan.com sites provide unique material that would be both integral and interesting to someone wanting to learn about Vince Young, and as such I have reincorporated back onto the page. This seems to be "relevant" and "suitable" without being necessary in the body of the article. Also, the vy10.com site sould perhaps be the "one major fansite" to be included, until another, perhaps more professional fansite surfaces. I do not see any reasons why these would violate External Link policy. J. Charles Taylor 06:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

Can someone find a source for Floyd Reese's quote about Young? I'll list it as Citation needed untill then. Thanks False Prophet 20:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There is actually a source listed, so I assume you are referring to the fact that the link is currently yielding a 404 error? Here is the diff where I added the quote: [2]. The link worked as of that date. My experience with SI leads me to believe that the link may come back up. Therefore, I don't think it would be best to remove the reference in favor of a {{fact}} check. The existing reference is more infomative in that it says where it was reported, and when the link was active. This is at least as informative as citing a printed newspaper, which the reader wouldn't be able to click to either. Johntex\^talk 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just use this article: "Heir to McNair? Titans draft Vince Young", instead? jareha ^(comments) 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Same quote - works for me! Johntex\^talk 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. jareha ^(comments) 16:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

I'm not going to pass or fail this nomination but I read the article and the previous failed review. Personally, I think there is too much explanation for redshirt in the article. I think only the first and third sentences in that paragraph are required since redshirt is wikilinked. But, somebody with more GA reviews than myself thinks otherwise so stick with it. I would like to see some succession boxes for his bigger awards like the Maxwell Award and Davey O'Brien Award. There are not any other GAs of athletes who have yet to play professionally so while I think this article is GA material now, that will definitely change after his first season. Oh yeah, you need to fix that citation in the Personal section, but I can see you all are already working on that.--Nmajdan 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI - When the first failed GA occurred - there was no explanation of redshirt included at all. I've added the explanation. It probably is too long. Personally, I disagreed with the advice to add an explanation so perhaps that is why I am struggling with getting a concise explanation into the article. I'll keep working on it - please feel free to jump in!

I'm also struggling with the fact that several things were flagged {{fact}} yet the prior review said "don't bulk up on inline citations". Personally, I think it is always better to err on the side of more citations. Advice? Johntex\^talk 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you. If there is something that contributes to the article in a meaningful way that was pulled from somewhere, it needs to be cited. I'd rather have a well-cited page than one with many stated facts and no citations.--Nmajdan 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am about to add a succession boxes for the Maxwell Award and Davey O'Brien Award. There is no need to worry about the article being up to date, as My project, WikiProject: NFL Rookies is meant to keep player articles up to date, I'll tag it saying that it is about a current sports event/person, and that it may be out of date, but I will keep this article as up to date as possible throughout the season. One thing was flagged because it had a citation number, but no source when I put it there. It's cleared up now.False Prophet 16:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree there is very little chance of this article falling out of date. In addition to your new project, it is also watched over by the Burnt Orange Brigade fairly closely. Thanks for the new succession boxes! Johntex\^talk 16:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Delisted as a good article. The article itself is too redundant at times. In addition, the career accomplishments section needs to be condensed; listing every career accomplishment, no matter how trivial is not necessary. Finally, I don't understand why there is a "Quote" section that only includes one quote, this should be put in the Personal section if put in at all.FalconFan 20:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The user account FalconFan does not have any edits and the above comment was left by an anonymous editor. I would urge the anonymous editor to use ~~~~ to sign their comments with an actual signature instead of typing a username that does not exist. The article was made a GA through due process and I have restored it to that status. If you really want it to be de-listed, you will need to be much more specific with your recommendations. Your personal opinion disagreeing with its GA status is not enough to overturn the fact that it was made a GA through due process and discussion. Johntex\^talk 17:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed

This article was promoted to GA status by User:ScienceApologist on 17 June 2006. The record is at Good Article Nominations and this talk page. Johntex\^talk 15:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Current sports template

I'm not sure if we really need the {{current sport}} template. Do we put this on every single player and every single team? When would it come off - when his career ends? I think it should only be there when something significant is happening - like if it is announced he will play in the upcoming week, or if he gets into some controversy, or sets some record, etc. Johntex\^talk 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should only be up during the season. I'm sure people are going to want to include certain information if an athlete has a banner day. Right now, during the offseason, there is not a lot to write about but that will change once the season starts and his role in the team is determined and his stats begin piling up.--Nmajdan 18:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How many games into the season do you think it will be until he takes his first snap? Do you think he will get into the pre-season games? Maybe we should leave the template off until he either gets in the game or makes the news in some big way. Johntex\^talk 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Until he is a regular contributer on the field, perhaps it should not be listed as current.--Nmajdan 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Trim" for userbox

I love how the trim to get the intro the length of the userbox (on a 1024x768 monitor, at least) involved deleting the Wonderlic controversy. Not exactly NPOV if you ask me.--Nmajdan 03:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the Wonderlic "controversy" is not notable enough to be included in the introduction. The issue arose and went away in a matter of a few weeks. Although no one can say for sure what his draft ranking would have been had he scored higher or lower on the Wonderlic, it seems safe to say that there was no adverse affect from the score on his draft ranking. The GM who drafted him said it made no difference to him at all and we have that quote substantiated right in this article. In short the issue was a tempest in a teacup. Under those circumstances, to include it in the intro would be to give it undue weight, which would be the POV problem, in my opinion. Other views? Johntex\^talk 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wonderlic controversy belongs in the article, but not in full detail in the intro. jareha ^(comments) 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks jareha, perhaps I should clarify though: It was mentioned in the intro, but not in detail. I removed one sentence about the Wonderlic: [3] So, I don't think anyone is saying full detail belongs in the intro, the question is more about whether a brief mention belongs in the intro or not. I felt like it could safely be deleted since the "controvery" was over in a few weeks and since it did not seem to affect his draft ranking or anything else. I deleted it for aesthetic reasons, but clearly those should take a back seat to being informative if we feel the topic really should be mentioned in the lead. Johntex\^talk 20:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to stir anything up. While I did find humor it the controversy when it happened, it has now proven itself to be insignificant. My major point was the "trim" in the intro was dropping the controversial statement and thus losing a bit of its NPOV. Nevertheless, I do believe its insignificant enough to not be in the intro and maybe not in the article at all. Unless, at some point in the future, more concrete details are released. Also, it was edited to align the text with the userbox. I say don't worry about that. Many different monitor resolutions are used to view Wikipedia and while a majority of them may be 1024x768, I don't think that should influence article format.--Nmajdan 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Young's Wonderlic test results, even if never know the complete story, were the focus of a media storm (at least in the sports press). For that alone, I say the topic is notable. jareha ^(comments) 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree they should stay in the article. For the forseeable future anyway (maybe someday his other accomplishments will make the article so long that there no space). My only question is - in the intro or not. I'm going to propose a staw poll to help us gauge the consensus. Johntex\^talk 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wonderlic straw poll

Notable enough for article, not for the intro

1. Johntex\^talk 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
2. NMajdan
3. False Prophet 02:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
4. jareha ^(comments) 02:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Legis 12:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on straw poll

Please put any lengthy discussion here to keep the staw poll easy to read. Johntex\^talk 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Who on earth...?

is this guy? Wikipedia sometimes takes my breath away! The enormous volume of words set aside for this one sports player - quite overwhelming ... it certainly shows where the world's mind is set. No offense to him, but does he really deserve all this? It almost vies with William Shakespeare for its hagiography Peter Shearan 11:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the articles on William Shakespeare or hagiography are too short, feel free to add relevent information to them (i know that not what you mean, but be bold). I remember watching the '06 Rose Bowl, and yes, it was hyped as one of the greatest football games ever (its #2 in my list), so i'm not surprised the top player in the game (if not the top player all year) has such a large article. Elouamn 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that Vince Young deserves a Wikipedia article. I know Wikipedia takes a bashing for being too US-centric, and Vince Young may not be particularly famous outside of the continent of North America (although even I, a Brit, have heard of him and his astonishing achievements in the 2006 Rose Bowl) but there must be very few people in the U.S. and Canada who haven't heard of him, even though his career is just starting. If we can find room for articles on the Reading F.C. reserve goalkeeper we can certainly have one on a star NFL/college football player. There are plenty of the great and the good who don't have article, or have insufficiently short articles about them, but the solution to that is to do some research and write about them. Legis 12:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

GA delisting

It still doesn't meet the GA standards and didn't change since it failed its nomination. Lincher 15:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will just comment briefly :

• listy ... they should be turned into prose, it is a request for GA.
• not an adequate lead section.
• hectic box on the article.
• Uses lines & words like currently, that would go down in Texas football history as one of the greatest ever played, solidified his reputation, further solidified by the fact, to better fit his unique skills, one of the most dominating individual performances in college football history and many more which aren't fit for biographies
• written for experts in the field.
• This makes it more difficult for the defensive team to account for all possible plays from scrimmage. doesn't make sense.
• the article also needs reorganization as a Reception/Criticism section should be setup.

Lincher 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just sent off an email to another author of this article User:Johntex. We'll see what we can do to make these changes this weekend. Hopefully we can get back to GA by this time next week! — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 16:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Two things : 1) don't revert just to prove a point as it is really too agressive. 2) reverting made me loose dozens of other points I was about to add to the article. I don't want to start a fight over the GA process but your article will go through the whole nomination process again after modifications have been made. Lincher 16:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has had vandal issues before, therefore, editors are more prone to quickly remove suspected vandalism. This article has seen anon IPs remove the GA listing continually with no reasoning. Therefore, perhaps you should make you delisting at the same time you make your comments on improving. I imagine you would encounter a lot less resistance that way. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Lincher, I'm confused by your opening statement. You say "didn't change since it failed its nomination". I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's most recent nomination was succussful. The article has not deterioated since then, as far as I can see. What did you mean by that? Johntex\^talk 01:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I submitted this article in WP:GA/R, because when I read the page, it has a non-standard WP way of putting infobox, with red links on top of the article. Well, I see changes now, but it is not the only issue for me to submit it there. I saw this article was listed as GA in 10 October 2006 [4], but I didn't see any review for the 2nd nomination of this article. Thus, I'm afraid it was a vandal or just a GA tag stamping. However, User:Lincher has made a good re-review of this article. It means that there are other issues concerning GA status of this article. If editors disagree with Lincher, then you can contribute at WP:GA/R to give your objections there. Or resolve Lincher's issue above and renominate it back. — Indon (reply) — 06:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As an answer to your question on my talk page you can see both the discussion here : Talk:Vince Young#Good Article nomination and there : Talk:Vince Young#Failed good article where I see that plenty points haven't been taken care of. Lincher 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I see, thank you both. I suspect that there may be a misunderstanding. Those discussions you refer to do not include the key event of the article being promoted to GA status. I have added a new section above (Talk:Vince_Young#GA_Passed) with diffs to the actual promotion of the article, which was by User:ScienceApologist. Regardless, we will work to improve the article. Johntex\^talk 15:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Improving back to GA

I'm taking each issue raised in demoting this article from GA and attempting to either correct the issue or explain why it should not really be an issue:

1. Retitle "High school career"

   I see no reason to retitle this. It is an acceptable term when referring to the performance of an athlete during that time period of their lives.[5] [6] [7]

2. Don't bulk up inline citation links

   I disagree with this suggestion. Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check encourages us to have multiple in-line references for every single fact. This way, if a source becomes unavailable or its veracity is challenged, we will still have at least one source for the fact.

3. Not an adequate lead section

   I agree the lead section needed work. I heavily editted it. I'd appreciate specific suggestions as to anything that may still need to be fixed in the lead.

4. listy ... they should be turned into prose, it is a request for GA

   It is a request but not a requirement. The MoS allows embedded lists. In fact, Wikipedia:Embedded list says that "In some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence".

5. hectic box on the article.

   Agreed. Fixed.

6. Uses lines & words like currently, that would go down in Texas football history as one of the greatest ever played, solidified his reputation, further solidified by the fact, to better fit his unique skills, one of the most dominating individual performances in college football history and many more which aren't fit for biographies

   The ones you have pointed out have either been fixed or referenced to a specific source. I have also scanned the article and fixed all the others that I found. If I missed any, please let me know.

7. written for experts in the field.

   This statement by itself is not actionable. In general, though, care has been taken to follow the GA criteria (please see Wikipedia:What is a good article?) which says "...d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided." Therefore, I believe this objection has been addressed.

8. This makes it more difficult for the defensive team to account for all possible plays from scrimmage. doesn't make sense.

   It does make sense, grammatically, but I think the terminology may have been confusing. I have re-worded it.

9. the article also needs reorganization as a Reception/Criticism section should be setup.

   I see no need for reorganization. Wikipedia:Guide to layout does not specify a need for a Reception/Criticism section and I see no need for one. The only two criticisms I have found about this person are his "unorthodox" throwing style and his reportedly low Wonderlich score. Both are covered in the article. Neither seem sufficient to justify such a section even in combination. It seems best to deal with those isssues chronologically as they have related to his life.

10. Messy linkage in the intro (why is there an "its" in the link?)

    Agreed. Fixed.

11. Don't put date/births in parenthesis, prose it paragraph

    I disagree. Please see [Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death|Wikipedia's policy for dates of birth and death]].

12. Expand "Personal", it's an important section, and is practically a stub

    It has been expanded. It is still a fairly short section, but Vince Young is not noted for anything outside of what is covered in this article. We could include things like his favorite book and other things reported in his biography, but that would be adding pointless trivia. Therefore, I see no good reason to lengthen this section at this time.

13. Explain what a "letterwinner" is.

    "Letterwinner" is now wikilinked to the appropriate article. The Good Article criteria states that a wikilink is suffiient to define a term.

14. Explain what a " all-district performer" is.

    Not yet addressed

15. Prose sections like this "(20+ points per game career average)" into the paragraph.

    The manual of style allows parentheses. In fact, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Brackets even uses statements inside of parentheses in explaining the style guideline.

16. Give a quick definition of "redshirted", it seems important for it.

    The term now has a short explanation of the importance of redshirting, as well as a wikilink to the relevant article.

17. Explain what "6-1" refers me.

    Again, per the GA criteria, this term has been linked to an article where the term is explained. For good measure, a footnote has also been added to the article.

18. He had a 6-1 record as a starter." should be merged into the previous sentence.

    Agreed. Fixed.

19. If terms such as "sophomore" and "freshman" are so intergral to Young's career, explain them, I'm not American so I'm rather lost.

    They are both wikilinked, so I don't really understand the problem. However, to make it simpler, I re-titled the years of his college career. Now, instead of being labeled "freshman", "sophomore",... they are labeled by calendar year.

20. Explain what the "Rose Bowl" is.

    Per the GA criteria, a wikilink counts as a definition. There is no way an article like this can explain all football terminology it uses. The reader is expected to follow the links if they don't understand.

21. " regular season".. which would be?

    Agreed. Fixed.

22. Make that whole section non-football fan friendly, I can't understand it, and that's an automatic fail.

    This statement by itself is not actionable. In general, though, care has been taken to follow the GA criteria (please see Wikipedia:What is a good article?) which says "...d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided." Therefore, I believe this objection has been addressed.

23. Prose the next TWO sections into paragraphs

    The MoS allows embedded lists. In fact, Wikipedia:Embedded list says that "In some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence".

24. Don't make notes about Notes!

    We are not making notes about notes. We are combining a footnote with a reference. I know of no policy or guideline that precludes this, and it is a very useful construct. It allows us to explain something that may interest a fraction of readers (and provide a reference to back up the explanation) without deviating into the matter in the actual text of the article. For instance, please consider the number of players Mack Brown has lost prior to the exiration of their college eligibiility. This question is of hot interest to hard-core UT fans (for proof, see the article edit history where edit warring occured over this prior to the current solution), but probably not to a more casual reader. As you have requested multiple times, we have made the article accessible to non-experts in the field.

25. Clean up External Links into one list

    Ageed. Done. The list has also been pruned.

For those points I am electing not to change, I look forward to the thoughts of other editors.Johntex\^talk 07:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pro Bowl Info

Why does his Pro Bowl appearance carry the "Replaced Philip Rivers" qualification? No other Pro Bowl replacement that I could find has an info table that carries this qualification.

And now it's gone. Nevermind.