Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1998 NFC Championship Game/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2017 [1].

---

1998 NFC Championship Game

Nominator(s): Helltopay-27 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Second attempt at a FA nomination, now with a new title. This article is about the championship game in 1998 NFL season to determine the NFC representative for the Super Bowl, a famous game in NFL lore due to the Falcons' upset victory. Helltopay-27 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments (briefly)

I don't know anything about American football, but this nomination has waited a long time for its first comments, and I hope that these few remarks might kickstart some more general interest.

• Despite my ignorance I found the article interesting, but I kind of got the impression I was reading a sports page, rather than an encyclopedia article. The essence of the encyclopedia is neutrality in tone; here, in the lead alone, we have an overdose of superlatives: "one of the best conference championship games in NFL history", "the proudest moment in Falcons history", and "devastating" twice in two lines. I'm not saying you should drain all life out of the prose, but care has to be taken not to go into overdrive.
• There's quite a lot of verbatim quotes in the article, and here again one needs to take care to preserve a semblance of encyclopedic detachment. While some spontaneous reaction is OK, I question the need to include: "You fucked up, Gary! You fucking blew history, Gary!" – particularly as this comment came "years later".
• Not knowing how football scoring works, I got rather tangled up when reading the match account. I wasn't helped by the frequent switchings of the teams' names – "Falcons" or "Atlanta", "Vikings" or "Minnesota" – and I found it difficult sometimes to relate the given scores to the play I was reading about. In particular I would like to have known what the points score was at the time of Anderson's kick, and also what the points score was at the end of regulation time.
• Subject to these reservations, I think the article and its accompanying tables are well presented, and although I haven't checked the references in detail, there doesn't appear to be any obvious problem there. I'd be interested to hear what other reviewers have to say. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've reworded the "best conference championship game" per Cas Liber's suggestion below, and removed the first instance of "devastating." (Also suggested by Cas.) Beyond that, I await more feedback on the issue; Wikipedia allows such superlatives as long as they are sourced, (which these are) and I believe that it properly contextualizes the sentiment of the game among NFL fans/writers. In the instances in the lead, these sentiments are expanded upon with direct sources later in the article.
  • I've removed the specific quote in question, as I agree, it doesn't really add to the article. As for other verbatim quotes, I again await more feedback. I modeled my article off of Heidi Game, a current featured article that uses a similar amount of verbatim quotes, which eliminates some subjectivity by providing the reader with the person's actual words.
  • I've added scores and consistency to the naming conventions. I fear that it may have made the prose clunky, so any feedback in that regard would be appreciated.
  • Much appreciated, thank you. Helltopay-27 (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• • My plearure. I'll keep watching, to see what others make of it. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look..

• Try "most exciting" rather than "best" in the first sentence of 2nd para as more exact.
• You use "devastating" twice in last segment of last para of lead. Just remove the first and meaning is preserved as second mention explains "effect" just before.
• despite tremendous talent --> "despite his talent" explains context adequately
• had initiated a complete roster overhaul - err, no, if it was then 53 of 53 players would be new. Just say "overhauled the roster"
• All players should be linked at first instance in body of text and then not again. also use full name on first mention only then just surname (unless there are two of the same name such as Anderson)

Engaging read though and doesn't need too much work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Done.
  • Removed.
  • Revised.
  • Revised.
  • I've edited the article to this guideline within reason; I've shortened "Gary Anderson" to "Anderson" in the paragraphs that established Gary Anderson is the subject. (Without referring to any other Andersons/sens.)Helltopay-27 (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Okay cool. I can't see any other outstanding prose-clangers, and for mine it strikes a good balance between neutral encyclopedic dryness and enthusiastic effusiveness. A nice read. And looks comprehensive..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ceranthor Comments

• Part of the 1998–99 NFL playoffs, it was played between the Minnesota Vikings - Reads kind of awkwardly; think this might be better without passive voice
• for the chance to play in Super Bowl XXXIII. - repeating play again after it was used within the same sentence
• Due to the circumstances surrounding the kick, Anderson's missed field goal has since become the focal point of the loss.[9] - circumstances is kind of a vague choice for a noun here, could you tweak this a bit?
• The Falcons went on to lose 34–19 to the Denver Broncos two weeks later in the Super Bowl - not a fan of the use of "went on to X"; might be better as The falcons subsequently lost or something along those lines
• Although the game long stood as the proudest moment in Falcons history, - for the franchise or the team?
• Randy Moss, who, despite his talent, was passed by several teams, - is passed the correct verb here? Not sure
• Combined with a defense that finished fourth overall in points allowed, the Falcons won the - Not sure what's being combined here; I'd suggest a more precise verb than combined and clarification of what you're comparing
• Cunningham drew on his religious faith to persevere through the loss, believing that God had a reason for everything to happen. - I don't think it's necessary to link faith or God
• the 1998 Vikings would have been considered the best NFL team of their generation had they went on to win the Super Bowl,[10 - had they won the Super Bowl, not went on win
• Falcons linebacker Jessie Tuggle agreed, noting that "Dan has really inspired us all. [...] He walked in the meeting room four days after having had surgery, and you could have heard a pin drop. We wanted to hear every last word he had to say." - citation?
• Chandler was noted as the offensive hero of the game, despite the attention that the Vikings' offense received during the season. - citation?
• Elway was quoted as saying, "These last three years have been hell. I know I would not have been back here if Dan Reeves had been here. It wasn't worth it to me. I didn't enjoy it. It wasn't any fun, and I got tired of working with him." - citation?
• Reeves responded by saying, "Just tell him it wasn't exactly heaven for me either. One of these days I hope he grows up. Maybe he'll mature sometime." - citation?
• General suggestion: maybe another image to break up the text?

Overall, good work, but the prose needs some fine-tuning. I may go over it again with more suggestions and perhaps do some more copyediting. ceranthor 02:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• • The beginning of the first paragraph has been revised.
  • See above.
  • Revised.
  • Changed to simply "The Falcons lost"
  • The franchise. Revised.
  • Yes, it's terminology used in the context of a team not choosing a player in the draft.[2][3][4]
  • Revised.
  • Revised.
  • Revised.
  • Citation 50 at the end of the sentence.
  • Citation 6 at the end of the next sentence
  • End of the paragraph
  • End of the paragraph

Helltopay-27 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that direct quotations should be immediately cited when they're provided. There should be no confusion when someone else reads an article where your quotations came from. ceranthor 00:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Eh... I think this might come down to personal preference. I couldn't find anything in the Wikipedia policies that specifically addresses the issue. Plus, I know there are users out there who prefer that a source is used to encompass all relevant information until another source is used. I was told as much during for my previous featured article nomination. Regardless, the sources are there; I hope that this won't hold up opinions to support promoting the article. Helltopay-27 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Helltopay-27:, I'll look at this tomorrow. ceranthor 03:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you want me to provide a source review as well? ceranthor 18:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're so inclined, I won't stop you. Thank you. Helltopay-27 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on the prose per 1a. ceranthor 15:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Source comments:

• What makes http://www.sportsgrid.com/ a reliable source?
• Source spotchecks check out (randomly checked three sources).
• Earwig's copyvio tool also checks out.
• Unsure whether Sports Reference LLC can be considered a reliable source. Any evidence to justify that it is? ceranthor 02:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • SportsGrid is the sports division of Complex magazine. Per Wikipedia's reliability policy: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." I believe Complex falls under that description.
  • Sports Reference LLC is the parent company/publisher of the website pro-football-reference.com, which is the the source of the information. Wikipedia has found it reliable enough in the past to create a template to cite the website. Helltopay-27 (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, okay then. I'm happy with the sources. ceranthor 12:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. Comprehensive and well-structured. I copyedited a bit; please revert if I messed anything up. Prose is clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.