Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

RfC on the Brain Damage section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There appears to be a weak consensus for including brain damage information as part of a Personal life section, after the Death section. Vote counting was difficult due to there being a spectrum of positions which varied in how much they actually conflicted with each other. However, it seems that the concerns of most editors can be addressed by moving the personal life section after the death section, and including the brain damage information there. I'm going to go ahead and implement a naive version of this consensus by simply moving Brain damage to a subheader of Personal life, and then moving Personal life to after Death. However, further edits will likely be in order to better integrate the sections; I will leave that to editors who are more involved with the article. signed, Rosguill talk 18:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Where in the article should the "Brain Damage" section be placed? More details can be found in the talk section above. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

My issues with that suggestion are the following: Redundancy. And looking at the current "Legal issues" section, with all of its subsections, I don't see where it would smoothly fit. Yeah, we could place it at the start of the section before the subsections, but it would just seem out of place and as though we are trying to justify his actions. And why place the material there, where it can be easily overlooked, when there is a "Brain damage" section for readers to get all of the brain damage material in one area? We consolidate material in one section all the time, as seen by the current state of this article and various other Wikipedia articles. And it's usually for the best, as I think it is in this case. Even if we got rid of the "Brain damage" section and spread the material throughout, it's still the case that readers are best served having all of that material in one section rather than disjointed. In my opinion, the content should simply be a part of the "Death" section anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I took now the time to read more carefully the source provided by WhatamIdoing, and it's still a retrospective interpretation, so as my initial comment described, I think retrospective interpretations should not be mixed with the rest, so I agree that everything can be placed in a Brain damage section at the end of the entry. It could be done differently, but I think this is both more neutral (as we don't meddle ourselves with choosing what other sections we have to modify according to retrospective interpretations of his brain damage), and less redundant (if there are multiple interpretational consequences to the brain damage, such as death and legal, subsections can be created, if there is enough content to warrant that of course). I understand what WhatamIdoing suggests, there may be other ways to present the content in an encyclopedic manner, but here the chronological order seems to me to be the most easy neutrality-proof approach. --Signimu (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Disagree, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer that we don't want too much redundancy. Some is OK, but this section is only three paragraphs long. How would you feel, @WhatamIdoing: and @Signimu:, about moving the paragraph about the lawsuit into the Death section, the other two paragraphs into the Legal problems sections, and a single sentence in the Paranoia section about how it may have been caused by CTE? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
For the record (although I probably don't need to state it), I wouldn't support that suggestion, per what I argued above. I just don't see how it best serves the reader to split the brain content in that way. I would be okay with the lawsuit material being moved to the "Death" section if the other brain damage material was moved there as well, with or without the "Brain damage" section being a subsection of the "Death" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think moving brain damage or legal sections in death section would be good, as they are not that much related. The only link is that the brain damage and one legal action (if I'm not mistaken) are done post-mortem, and that the brain damage may explain his death and interpret his lifelong actions, but that's a post-mortem guess, so a reinterpretation. I think that any order except chronological about the brain. But on second thoughts I can see how the brain damage could be directly integrated: the brain damage section could be placed very up in the entry and then the brain damage related infos pertaining to legal and death and other events could be integrated directly into the pertinent sections. I could totally see that for a historical figure, but since here this is a biography of a very recent personality, and the brain damage stuff is also very recent and not so much detailing, as the consequences are mostly assumptions, I can see that doing such an article organization would lead to conflicts, as then the editors will clearly insert post-mortem reinterpretations throughout the article, it's less neutral. --Signimu (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding merging the "Death" and "Brain damage" sections, it's just that (like Cook907 above) I don't see that they need to be separated. We include "after death" material in death sections all the time. Granted, it's usually only about the family members, friends, acquaintances, and sometimes also about how the public reacted. For example, the "Death" section of the Whitney Houston article currently includes a "Reaction" subsection with "Pre-Grammy party" and "Further reaction and tributes" subsections. In other cases, when a legacy section doesn't exist, legacy material may be in the "Death" section. But I'm content to let the "Death" and "Brain damage" sections stay separate in the case of the Aaron Hernandez article.
Regarding what you stated about reinterpretation, yeah, if we went with any such setup, I think editors would start adding "but his brain damage might have contributed to [so and so]" or similar throughout the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that this information should be "separated". I think that some (not most) should be repeated (briefly) throughout the article. Repetition is good.
Signimu, "neutral" on Wikipedia means "follow the sources", rather than pretending that we don't know more in 2019 than we did in 2015. If the current sources are saying "Hey, all that violence and stuff might be explained by his CTE" (and they are), then the Wikipedia article should do the same. We should not be burying this information in a single section, especially since almost nobody will read the entire article. If you're having trouble imagining how a (slightly) "non-chronological" form is neutral, then I want you to think about how horrible it would be for family members to read these sections without any mention of this serious mitigating factor, and ultimately how unfair that is. I don't think that "He did all of this (probably because he was a bad man)" is more neutral in any sense than "He did all of this, and later we all learned that he was living with severe, undiagnosed brain damage of the sort known to produce that kind of behavior". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't see the factual and cold description of the events as being depicting the person as a "bad man", but I can understand how it could be perceived as such, particularly by the family, that's a very good point. I'll re-read more carefully all the sources about this issue and may reconsider my position. --Signimu (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, this has nothing to do with "being 'neutral' on Wikipedia means 'follow the sources'." We do relay that "Hey, all that violence and stuff might be explained by his CTE," but we don't have it come before "all the violence" stuff or before first having a section devoted to his death. Having it in a single section called "Brain damage" is not burying it in the least. It is right there, easy for readers to locate because it is its own section. Having it in the Personal life section or any other section (except for the "Death" section) without a subheading would be burying it. Your "the poor family" argument is highly flawed and unconvincing. Similar can be stated about the poor victims. I want you to think about how horrible it would be for victims or their family members to read these sections with the impression that none of Hernandez's actions were actually his fault; it was the brain damage that did it. We do not write our Wikipedia articles based on what family members may think.
Per what Signimu and I have argued, you have yet to show how it makes more sense to have the brain damage information scattered about instead of within one section or that it should go in the "Personal life" section before we have an entire section commenting on his death. Like I noted in the section immediately above this, "That 'the researchers suggested that the CTE, which results in poor judgment, inhibition of impulses, or aggression, anger, paranoia, emotional volatility, and rage behaviors, may explain some of Hernandez's criminal acts and other behavior' does not negate the fact that the entire section is aftermath material with regard to his death. It is not as though the brain damage topic was an active aspect of his life. By this, I mean an active discussion in his life and something that was being looked into while he was alive. So to begin a section with this 'after his death' material and to then have a 'Death' section following that is a poor setup." Everything you are arguing is personal preference. The sames goes for others. I suggest that Signimu stick to their original thoughts on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Another element, according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Order_of_events, biographies should be presented in a chronological order, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. I can see the merits in both points of views, but I still slightly sway towards moving to personal life, because after reading the sources themselves, I am now more convinced of the pertinence to better integrate this info in the entry. For instance, moving to personal life section while retaining the subheader would place "Brain damage" just after "Paranoia", which it complements since CTE is likely to explain the paranoia according to the sources. The most problematic point for me is that the Brain damage section is underdeveloped, apparently several researchers agree this is an exceptional case study (extreme CTE case + very young), and this info is nowhere to be found in the entry currently. But the fact according to the sources that there appears to be a scientific consensus that this condition has certainly influenced his life, although we can't be sure to what extent, is IMHO a good enough reason to not follow the chronological order for this content. --Signimu (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Per my arguments and your earlier arguments, I remain unconvinced that this material should be a part of the "Personal life" section. I just do not see that it's best for the article or readers to have the Personal life section go into extensive detail about research that was done on his brain after he died before we even present the dedicated "Death" section. The brain damage material is "after his death" material. And it is not as though the researchers know for certain that brain damage contributed to any of his behavior. They state "may" and "some of Hernandez's criminal acts and other behavior." "May have contributed to" or "may explain" is not the same thing as "did contribute to" and "does explain." The researchers don't even state "very likely did." At this point, we're going to have to agree to disagree. No need to keep repeating ourselves. I will reiterate now, though, that the brain damage material is legacy material, which is even more of a reason that it should not be a part of the "Personal life" section. I mentioned above that it's a part of his legacy and that we have these sections come after all of the general material. And below, in the collapse box, I see the following statement: "But McKee's discovery raised the prospect that Hernandez's ultimate legacy might be his damaged brain." As for the "Bran damage" section being underdeveloped, that can obviously be remedied by expanding it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Your arguments are sensible, as I said above I can see the merits of your position too. I just wanted to clarify however that the scientists do agree that they are sure that CTE influenced his behavior, what is less certain is to what extent this contributed to his criminal acts (see the quotes I extracted below). But for example for his paranoia and other psychoses, there is no doubt. For the extent, it's the role of justice to statuate on this issue, and for the moment the case was dropped, so we'll probably never know. I think that whatever is the final choice for the section, this is a very important point to clarify in the article. --Signimu (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I've looked at sources on the matter, and I understand CTE. But I generally don't see scientists definitively stating "this influenced his behavior." Perhaps that's just them being careful with wording, especially since his behavior includes his criminal behavior and they typically aren't definitively saying "this influenced his criminal behavior." I see scientific agreement that it likely influenced his criminal behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
This isn't about what is required. It's about what is best for this article/readers. We disagree. While there is setup consistency for Wikipedia articles (meaning biography articles are typically set up a certain way, medical articles are typically set up a certain way, and so on), what is best for articles varies. This isn't a medical article and I find it odd that WP:Med was alerted to it for input, but even WP:MEDORDER is clear about the following: "Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition." And the Wikipedia:Criticism essay you linked to is clear about the following: "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." Also, even types of biography articles can have a different setup; for example, the usual way that articles about singers are set up vs. articles about actors. And articles about historical figures are often set up differently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I prefer that. We don't actually know that CTE played a role in his death, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Collapsed premature tally.
  • It's now been over a week since the RfC was published, so I thought it might be helpful to see the results of the !vote so far.
Place after Death
  • Flyer22 Reborn
  • Darwin Naz
  • Cook907
Integrate it throughout
  • WhatamIdoing
Move to Personal Life
  • Slugger O'Toole
  • Coretheapple
  • Ozzie10aaaa
  • Signimu
Combine with Death
  • Doc James
It seems the two leading contenders are to either place the section after Death, or in the Personal Life section. In the interest of forming a consensus, perhaps we should now move towards trying to coalesce around one or the other of these options. What do you thing, @Flyer22 Reborn, Darwin Naz, Cook907, WhatamIdoing, Coretheapple, Ozzie10aaaa, Signimu, and Doc James:? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2019
Slugger O'Toole, RfCs stay open for a month unless they are a WP:SNOW close matter or are no longer needed after further discussion. That's the way these things go. We don't need anyone to keep tally or similar. A closer will close the RfC. Furthermore, your tally is off since, from the beginning, I've been clear that I am for the sections staying as they are (the "Brain damage" section after the "Death" section) or for the "Brain damage" section being combined with the "Death" section. Three editors initially agreed with me. One of those editors (Signimu) has so far changed their mind. So anyone who has stated "keep it where it is" or "combine with the death section" agrees with me. My vote is not at odds with Doc James's vote. And we can see that Cook907 stated above, "Leaving it where it is maintains the chronological structure of this article, but then again maybe it doesn't need to be a section on its own and it can be included at the end of the death section." It's best that you be patient and let this RfC play out without continually conducting it and proposing things. This RfC isn't about other proposals. If you feel you must suggest other proposals, it's best that you start a "Discussion" section and title this initial area the "Survey" section. See WP:Requests for comment/Example formatting. You shouldn't move any of the discussion that has taken place in this section so far to a Discussion section, though. It would be taking editors' responses out of context. Because your tally is inaccurate, has become outdated with Crossroads's vote below, would become outdated with others' votes unless continually updated, and might unfairly influence this RfC, I have put it within a collapse box. WP:Consensus on Wikipedia isn't about votes (except for matters like WP:RfAs); it's about the strength of the arguments. I stand by my arguments on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
From [1]:

"The results of their examination raised a painful question about America’s most popular sport: Is football fundamentally dangerous?"

"The violent life and death of Aaron Hernandez has become a case study in that emotionally charged debate, which has resurfaced repeatedly in the long history of a physically punishing game whose players are often compared to gladiators. [...] McKee revealed that Hernandez had died with the worst case of chronic traumatic encephalopathy ever seen in someone so young. [...] But McKee’s discovery raised the prospect that Hernandez’s ultimate legacy might be his damaged brain. It was evidence that football’s brutality may have consequences not just for NFL retirees, but active players in their 20s and perhaps younger." "CTE, a progressive degenerative condition, is believed to be caused by only one thing: repeated hits to the head. [...] Diagnosing the disease requires removing the brain and analyzing its tissue, so it can only be confirmed after death." "Her diagnosis also introduced a controversial possibility: that Aaron Hernandez had committed suicide in part because he had a severe neurological injury — a brain so scarred by recurring head trauma that it could help explain his troubling behavior, possibly including his criminal acts." "While alive, Hernandez displayed hallmark symptoms of the disease, including poor judgment, lack of impulse control, anger, and paranoia, but there were other powerful forces at play that could have influenced his behavior.

He was a habitual pot smoker with a history of substance abuse. He ingested the dangerous drug K2 within 30 hours of his suicide, a short-enough span that it may have impaired his thinking as he prepared to hang himself. The psychological effects of other factors are even harder to assess, such as his conflicted sexuality and the long-term impact of the abuse, sexual and physical, he suffered as a child.

It’s also difficult to gauge whether Hernandez’s CTE symptoms worsened as he aged, since he had a record of violent acts from the time he arrived at the University of Florida as a 17-year-old to the moment he took his life a decade later.

And it’s by no means clear that CTE can lead to homicidal acts. Among the dozens of former NFL players who have been diagnosed with CTE, only Hernandez and one other — Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher, who murdered his girlfriend before taking his own life — are known to have killed someone else in addition to themselves."

"“We now know there was substantial evidence that Mr. Hernandez should not have been convicted of first-degree murder,” wrote J. Amy Dillard of the University of Baltimore and Lisa A. Tucker of Drexel University. “Given the conclusive diagnosis of Stage 3 CTE, it is likely that a lifetime of playing football — not Mr. Hernandez’s will — was to blame.”" "After Hernandez’s CTE diagnosis, Sheff wondered: “Maybe brain injury is part of the answer.”"

From WhatamIdoing ref[2]:"The condition of Hernandez’s brain, pristine because of his age and the adept handling of medical examiners, could lead to future breakthroughs and better understanding of CTE. For example, researchers could better study the interaction of inflammation and tau pathology through the use of fluorescent stains. It gave researchers their best view yet of a marker associated with CTE."

"they were “very unusual findings in an individual of this age,” McKee said. “We’ve never seen this in our 468 brains, except in individuals some 20 years older.”"

I think we need a "both/and" approach to this information, not an "either/or" approach. We can have a section on his health, but that is not sufficient. We also need that information throughout the whole article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Bagumba, Isaidnoway, and others, reporting on details (like the Boston Globe does) that his brother says happened during his life is significantly different than reporting on his CTE maybe having contributed to some of his criminal acts, though. I understand placing abuse material based on his brother's book in his "Early life" section, for example. But adding speculation regarding his CTE at different parts in the article? I'm just not seeing that as best, for reasons I've gone over. As discussed before, there also appears to be excessive or WP:Undue material included from his brother's book. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2019 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

In the section titled Brain Damage, CTE symptoms are listed, but one is the opposite of what it should be.

“Inhibition of impulses” should read “lack of inhibition of impulses” or “impulse control problems”

Mayo Clinic source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chronic-traumatic-encephalopathy/symptoms-causes/syc-20370921

Boston U source (leading researcher): http://www.bu.edu/cte/about/frequently-asked-questions/ 184.103.41.182 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Slugger O'Toole, regarding this and this, why are you engaging in citation overkill? WP:Citation overkill has solid advice on this. You nominated this article for WP:GA status. Well, with a good reviewer, the citation overkill would be one of the first things to go. I don't want to have to start an RfC on this as well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, WP:Citation overkill is only an essay. Given that all the references as list defined, there's no worry about marking the edit window cluttered. Hernandez also clearly has notability, so no concerns there. There's no concern about trying to prove a point or demonstrate notability of the claim, nor is there an attempt here to shoehorn a desired source into the article. Most importantly, however, there has been no explanation of why those two sources should be included while the others should be excluded. I am going to revert for now, but if you can change the longstanding consensus to include all sources then I would gladly abide by it. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, it's an essay that is widely adhered to. In addition to the policies and guidelines on this site, we also use common sense. This is why, for example, we don't place 20 citations beside a single sentence. In this particular case, it's not 20, but it's overkill, which is why one editor cut down on the overkill before I did. I have reverted you again. Do you really think that experienced editors are going to agree to this citation overkill if I start an RfC on this? There isn't even any need for bundling references in this case. The current state of this article is not GA material, I can tell you that, and you make it worse with citation overkill antics like this.
On a side note, no need to ping me to this talk page. I won't ping you either. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Notability has nothing to do with this. And there is no longstanding consensus to engage in citation overkill at this article. There's also been no discussion about including all the references currently in the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
There have been six citations on that sentence since November 2018. You have made almost 50 edits to the article since then. That's a WP:SILENT consensus for including all of them. I'm not going to edit war over this, but I haven't seen a new consensus form that we should remove them, or any explanation for why we should include those two but not any of the others.
Also, I use reply link to respond to comments, which automatically adds a notification. I'll try to remember to remove it when addressing you. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I originally removed the cites on the grounds of citation overkill. I don't see any reason for why you would want the 6 citations to remain. Using too many citations makes the article cluttered and harder to read. Removing the citation does not take any credibility away from the statement. Having 3 reliable sources is enough. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
As seen by the #should be greatly reduced discussion above, I and others have issues with this article. That we didn't try to challenge you, or repeatedly challenge you, on things doesn't mean that we agree to whatever current state the article is in. Obviously. Also, an editor can easily overlook an issue and not notice it until another editor highlights it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Aaron Hernandez/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 14:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


I'm going to take a look at this. As a long and gritty subject, it will probably take me a few days. Initial thoughts are that the referencing generally looks very good, but three of the sources are to potentially unreliable sources; can you try and replace them:

  1. Ref #5 ("Judge rules jury can see tattoos that may link killer ex-NFL star Hernandez to double murder". RT International. January 20, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2017.)
  2. Ref #86 (Price, Greg (June 26, 2013). "NFL Player Charged With Murder: Who Is Suspect Aaron Hernandez? Former New England Patriot Appears In Court, Pleads Not Guilty". International Business Times. Retrieved April 25, 2017.)
  3. Ref #138 (Barrabi, Thomas (June 27, 2013). "Aaron Hernandez Girlfriend: Will Shayanna Jenkins Testify In Odin Lloyd Murder Investigation?". International Business Times. Retrieved June 29, 2013.)

A couple of other minor referencing notes:

Overall, a lot of the references are inconsistent and missing key details. I have highlighted some of them, but I have not checked them all, just a sample near the start and end. Please go through each one and check that it is complete, and not missing any information. Harrias talk 14:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, Thanks for taking a look at this. I have gone through each of the references, one by one. It's possible I missed something, but they should be much improved now. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
If this review gets into article setup, please keep this RfC in mind. For reasons previously stated, I personally don't think that this article is close to GA status, but I'm not going to be heavily involved in this review. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Question: Why do you consider International Business Times a potentially unreliable source? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Frozen: Answer: The details are listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Harrias talk 13:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Harrias, I'd been aware of that supplement page and of sources like the Daily Mail being considered generally unreliable by Wikipedia, but I wasn't aware of the consensus on International Business Times. I appreciate you pointing this out. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Harrias, Have you had a chance to look at this again? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Eugh, sorry. Spinning too many plates on- and off-wiki, and lost track. Will aim to look through it tomorrow. Harrias talk 18:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
So is it a fail then? What was the outcome? Matthewishere0 (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Summary

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

Overall, I'm concerned about the quality of the prose throughout this article. The subject matter is inherently interesting, but I find the choppy, back-and-forth nature of the article prevents it from being as engaging as it should be. In fact, I've found it quite a struggle to get through. I was tempted to simply fail the article, but I've been reviewing quite a few FAs lately, so it is possible that I am expected too much from a GA. That said, I do think that significant work is needed to improve the prose. In general, the Professional career is much better written, but when getting into the off-field nitty gritty, the article often struggles to connect facts together to provide context; rather, it often feels like a series of facts are thrown at the reader, who is then expected to put them together to draw a conclusion. I have not provided a detailed review for the whole article, I think it has inherent issues that need to be sorted before too much detailed work; I'll place it on hold for the time being. If you feel that I am off the mark, I would not be offended by a request for a second opinion, as I say, I have found the article tough work, and that might just be me. Harrias talk 10:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • The prose is difficult to follow in places; the narrative jumps around sometimes, and short, choppy sentences and paragraphs break up the flow of the narrative. The Early life section suffers from this; I feel that breaking it up in four sub-sections makes it harder to follow, rather than easier.
    • Per the MOS, do not use 6'2" for his height; use 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m)
    • "He later said that he was high on drugs every time he took the field." Provide some context to this; was this just because he was addicted, or because he felt he needed the drugs to deal with the high workload?
    • After that statement, drugs aren't mentioned again for two paragraphs, when we are then told "Meyer had wanted to throw Hernandez off the team for his chronic marijuana use.." When was this, do we know? It feels odd having the two related facts given so far apart. Again, more context and better flow could be achieved.
    • "Florida coaches aligned Hernandez with Maurkice and Mike Pouncey." What does this mean?
    • Be careful to use italics in the prose if a source uses them in the references. Bleacher Report is one such example.
    • "Despite his being considered.." This might be an ENGVAR thing, but "his" seems superfluous here.
    • Multiple times, the article uses the construction: "one reception for 45-yards" or similar. I don't think that "45-yards" should be hyphenated here.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    • Some sources are still missing parameters such as retrieval date, as mentioned above.
    • There are too many similarities to some of the references:
      • "told Hernandez that they believed he had the potential to play in the National Football League (NFL)" / "told Hernandez how much they loved his talent and his potential to play in the NFL."
      • "Meyer had wanted to throw Hernandez off the team for his chronic marijuana use, but relented after an appeal from Tebow." / "..was a chronic marijuana smoker. Meyer had tried to throw Hernandez off the team but relented under pressure from Tebow."
      • "bowling, theater appreciation, wildlife issues, and a course entitled "plants, gardening and you."" / "bowling, theater appreciation, wildlife issues, and “plants, gardening and you.”"
      • "Hernandez received the lowest possible score in "social maturity"" / "Hernandez received the lowest possible score in the category of “social maturity.”"
      • "Hernandez was transferred to the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, a maximum security prison" / "Hernandez would be transferred to Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, a maximum security prison"
      • "Hernandez was disciplined dozens of times" / "Hernandez was disciplined dozens of times"
    • These are just some of the examples from the first couple of sources I have checked, and it's a worrying trend. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is worth a read or re-read. Harrias talk 10:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  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:

@Slugger O'Toole: How are things going with this? Harrias talk 10:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, Like you, I have a lot going on both on- and off-wiki these days. I had hoped that this process would spur other interested editors to help improve the article, but that has not happened. Since I can't commit to giving it the time it needs by myself, you should probably just fail it. Thanks for the effort, and if I have time to come back to it I will use your review as a guide. Thanks, and I am sorry. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
No worries; life happens. If you do come back and work on it, feel free to ping me if you want me to take another look over it at any point. Harrias talk 19:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:8401:AF0:0:0:0:81CB (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Cite errors

Lots of cite errors. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.156.94 (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 April 2020 and 13 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NicoleVal12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Tight end overhaul

Pats opted not to re-sign Watson and released baker not the other way around 32.208.201.70 (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Number and drug deal paragraph

Earlier today Rockchalk717 removed the paragraph below.

During training camp, wide receiver Chad Johnson arrived in a trade from the Bengals. Hernandez immediately let Johnson, who then legally had the last name "Ochocinco" based on his uniform number, have the No. 85, choosing to go back to his college number of No. 81, which was worn in 2010 by wide receiver Randy Moss, but became available after Moss was traded to the Minnesota Vikings in 2010.[1] Johnson and Hernandez both claimed no compensation was arranged and the transaction was a kind gesture between teammates and nothing more.[2] Hernandez's attorney, Jose Baez, claimed Hernandez saw an opportunity after the arrival of Johnson and offered No. 85 to Johnson for $75,000.[2] It was claimed by Baez that Johnson countered with a $50,000 offer that Hernandez accepted.[2] The money was reportedly used to finance a wholesale marijuana purchase by Hernandez for his cousin's husband, T.L. Singleton, who later paid Hernandez back $120,000 for the loan.[2]

References

  1. ^ Rodak, Mike (July 30, 2011). "Aaron Hernandez relinquishes No. 85". ESPN Boston. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
  2. ^ a b c d Dunphy, Mark (August 23, 2018). "Morning sports update: Aaron Hernandez allegedly sold his Patriots jersey number for drug money". Boston.com. Retrieved November 9, 2018.

It was a good faith edit, but I thought the content was relevant and solidly sourced, so I reverted. Instead of taking it to talk, Rockchalk717 simply removed it again. Rather than edit war, I now bring it to community for discussion. Should this paragraph, or something like it, be included? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, just because it's sourced doesn't mean it should be included. Additionally, it's on the person seeking inclusion of content to receive a consensus, not the person removing it so I did nothing wrong by reverting again without a discussion. Second, players change numbers all the time. Mentioning it every time someone does isn't entirely critical and seems more trivial than anything. And the fact that the word "reportedly" is being used about what happened to the money is actually proof it's just speculation. Hernandez or Chad Johnson neither one confirmed what happened to the money, instead it was his lawyer a year a half after his death.--Rockchalk717 19:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
There has been a consensus for 9.5 years to include that information. You are the one seeking to make a change, so the onus is on you to change the consensus first. Additionally, best practice here is WP:BRD. You were Bold and made an edit. I Reverted. The next step for you would be to Discuss the issue here on the talk page, not edit war back to your preferred version.
As to the substance of the matter, this wasn't just any number change. He sold the number and used the money to finance a drug deal. That's not your average swapping of jerseys. It's worth mentioning. I hope we get some more voices contributing here. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Janaegreene3455 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Guevarab1 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduce death before discussing posthumous legal appeals

I have moved the section about posthumous legal appeals to after the section about the subject's death. Reading the article for the first time, I knew he was dead, but it was very jarring to read about posthumous activities before even introducing the events of his death. If legal stuff really needs to be in the same section, it needs to introduce the death before talking about what happened after. —dgiestc 16:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Dgies moved the section discussing Hernandez's posthumous legal appeal to appear after the section on his death. I reverted, saying that I understand the thought process, but I think all the legal affairs topics belong together. Rather than come to talk, Dgies simply reverted back. I am glad she decided to come to talk, but unless and untill a new consensus is formed, the original version should remain.
That said, it is true that the mention of the appeal comes before the section on his death, but this article is laid out thematically, not chronologically. For example, the section on his death comes before the section about his finance and daughter. This subsection on his appeal more closely aligns with the legal affairs section than the death section. Plus, anyone who read the lede will already know he is dead anyway.
Finally, the first sentence of that section reads "After Hernandez' death, on April 25, 2017, his lawyers filed a motion at Massachusetts Superior Court in Fall River to vacate his murder conviction." (emphasis added). His death is introduced before there is talk of the appeal. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
More