This review is transcluded from Talk:Patrick Omameh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AutomaticStrikeout (talk · contribs) 03:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I will have further comments later, but for now, you might look into whether or not the personal life section could be expanded. Also, I don't believe it is necessary to link the same publisher more than once in the reference section. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason links are considered redundant in the text when they are repeated is because we assume the reader has read the text above. We do not assume that the reader reads each ref, so they should stand alone. Thus, links can be repeated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Omameh was an Academic All-Big Ten in both 2010 and 2011." Source?
  • Reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "On September 18, Omameh was named to the 11-man Allstate American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) Good Works Team." September 18 of what year?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 1 appears to be a dead link and Ref 17 does not seem to mention Omameh
  • Unable to verify print version of ref 1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not really sure that you can conclude that Taylor Lewan and other teammates marveled at Omameh's appetite from the source provided.
  • Unable to verify print version of ref 1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If more information cannot be found for the personal life section, you might consider merging it if possible. Also, you might move the information about his appetite there.
• I'll give you a couple of days to try and find a bit more content for the article, in case there is some more that could be said, but I think this is pretty close to passing right now. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  How soon do you think you can address the rest of these concerns? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 1 went dead and I have no way to verify if a print edition contains this content. I have gotten discouraged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't necessarily consider it a deal-breaker all by itself. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After giving it further consideration, I have decided to pass the article and I will be listing it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger is citing the status of this article as a GA to justify submitting subpar GANs like Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1 and Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)/GA1. However, it's clearly not at GA status today. It was perhaps a defensible promotion back in 2013, before Omameh's football had progressed. But it's far short of the GAC in 2024. His professional career is inadequately summarised in choppy prose – tiny sections detail little more than the dates he signed for and left his various teams. – Teratix ₵ 02:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Although Proquest has 1500 articles with his name, I am not seeing anything really encyclopedic missing. Here are samples of the types of articles on Omameh:

  https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2018/09/04/new-york-giants-patrick-omameh-struggled-pass-protection-preseason/

  https://saintswire.usatoday.com/2020/12/29/saints-depth-chart-patrick-omameh-chiefs-practice-squad/

  https://www.raiders.com/news/las-vegas-raiders-sign-patrick-omameh-nfl-2021-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Most articles that seem interesting are rehashing his WP Bio:

  https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2018/03/15/new-york-giants-sign-patrick-omameh-5-things-now/-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Coverage of him drops off after 2019.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the moment, the article violates MOS:OVERSECTION; that is easily fixed, but a quick couple of searches on newspapers.com and Google shows that there has been large amounts of coverage on Omameh's professional career, especially in its early years, which the article eschews in favour of endless statistics and all-star team inclusions. Thus, the article does not meet GA criterion 3a) as it stands. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teratix do you feel that the issues are resolved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the basic problems with paragraph structure and comprehensiveness remain unfixed. The article really speaks for itself on this account. – Teratix ₵ 05:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the issue was deficient content. I'll revisit this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Structure has been fixed. As noted above, there is not any significant content missing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you did was mash the tiny one-line sections into one big chunk. That doesn't actually fix anything. I mean, come on, you look at a section like:

Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, 2020. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He was waived on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Omameh was claimed off waivers by the New Orleans Saints. He was waived on December 24, 2020.

You honestly think "structure has been fixed"? You honestly think "there is not any significant content missing"? You honestly think that's a well-written summary of Omameh's career that adequately addresses its main aspects? – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Teratix, what I am hearing is the encyclopedic content that you (me) have summarized is very heavy on roster transactions and little else, but there surely must be other interesting stuff. Otherwise, this can't be a GA. Please be advised that my role is to summarize encyclopedic content from secondary sources. There are some people who are not in the public eye for their entire lives and thus only portions of their life will be fleshed out in a WP biography. Others may be in the public eye with limited exposure for parts of their lives. It is my current understanding that Omameh is no longer the feature of original secondary source research beyond transaction detail and rehashing his WP bio. I am not aware of new stories regarding his biographical summary. I am well aware that this biography trails off in terms of biographical intrigue. Unless, you can explain to me that I am overlooking biological topics of intrigue, the fact that what I am presenting is boring transaction stuff, is not really a big strike against comprehensiveness. WP is a tertiary source and is only responsible for summarizing encyclopedic content of reliable secondary sources. A comprehensive summary of boring sources is still comprehensive. Telling me what I present is boring content of limited depth is not a mark against comprehensiveness unless there exist secondary sources that contain encyclopedic content that I am not summarizing. I do not believe oversight to be the case.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are five substantive sources on Omameh that are completely unused in the article.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} They were all on the first page of a basic Newsbank search.

Note these are intended as representative examples to demonstrate how much this article is missing, not to be exhaustive. You could include all five and that wouldn't fix the problem. So yes, you are overlooking significant secondary sources.

But I shouldn't even have to pick these out. It should be blindingly obvious, when two full years of Omameh's career is mechanically summarised as:

Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, 2020. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He was waived on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Omameh was claimed off waivers by the New Orleans Saints. He was waived on December 24, 2020.

...that the article is evidently missing coverage. – Teratix ₵ 06:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that at 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC), I pinged Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Patrick_Omameh/1-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a ton that could be added about those portions of his career, although Tony, you probably could add things in between like, e.g. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He appeared in six games for the team before being waived on December 14, 2020. (See PFR). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph is also very poorly written (even relative to the rest of the article) and fails GA criterion 1a). I really don't know why constantly repeating the years is necessary, nor why three sentences with an average length of nine words are necessary to describe a ten-day period. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know why constantly repeating the years is necessary, nor why three sentences with an average length of nine words are necessary to describe a ten-day period. – while the years may not be necessary, the second part you mentioned is definitely necessary as it explains important details / transactions of his career (something all modern football player articles have), although it could be combined into less sentences. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tail end of the careers of pedestrian players is often a lot of choppy content like you see here. It is rare that anyone is ever asked to pay such close attention to the content of this portion of the biography for as mediocre of a player. It seems quite unnatural to me. There are many much more worthwhile expenditures of my editorial time. I am not above delving into the biographies of mediocre players. However, I consider it far more worthwhile to flesh out a redlink into a decent biographical picture than it is to spend time detailing precisely how mediocre a player is who already has a biography that gives a decent picture of that mediocrity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's perfectly alright to say "I don't care enough about these players to justify spending my time on fixing their articles. I'm going to spend my time on other things instead."

But taking this stance means accepting the possibility that these players' articles will degrade over time as their careers progress, that other editors will notice this and put the articles up for reassessment, and thus that if not enough is done, they will lose their GA status.

Ultimately, you can't have your cake and eat it too. There's no GAC exception saying "articles must be well-written and adequately address the main aspects, except if they're on mediocre NFL players". – Teratix ₵ 07:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teratix, you no doubt have shown that content is missing. The question is what is considered encyclopedic. I don't know what the football term is, but baseball statasticians (I have a Masters Degree in Statisitcs, BTW) use a term called replacement player. It is a generic term that star players are compared against in a statistic known as Wins Above Replacement. It is used to statistically assess how valuable a player is in comparison to the average player that would replace him if he could not play. What we see in Omameh is someone who is basically the embodiment of a replacement player, which is a bit of a digression. Certainly, if WP:V secondary sources that are WP:RS present content, it is our duty to summarize that content at some level. However, we must keep in mind WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which says "Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". We need to consider WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I view expanding upon mediocrity as a violation of WP:ROUTINE. I generally spend time seeking out content examples of excellence. Facts that document excellence are encyclopedic. A haystack of facts that are verifiable and sourced to document that which is run-of-the-mill is not what I use my time for. The vast majority of facts that I include in athlete biographies demonstrate things distinguishing a person from a replacement player. Documenting facts that further solidify a player's status as an embodiment of a replacement player seems ROUTINE and unencyclopedic to me. Furthermore, many athletes who are fairly pedestrian play positions in sports where they can have a great game that can be reported. Even a scrub basketball player who finally achieves double digit scoring in a game is an interesting element of content. However, for an offensive lineman there are not really any stats that if he has a decent day that we can present. If Omameh had a game where he played 50 snaps with any quarterback hurries, sacks, pass deflections, or penalties, it would be hard for me to write about it. Basically, if a guy is good enough to start in the NFL, we can give his article some facts. So for a lineman, we might end up with signings, releases and starts. Explaining his mediocrity is a waste of time, IMO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Teratix, I'm not seeing precisely what more is needed here? IMO, "adequately addresses the main aspects" does not mean "include every detail known to man" – the article doesn't look that bad to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Tony has expanded the article a bit having done some Newsbank searches of his own. This is good! For instance, the section on his 2016 season at the Jaguars:

Omameh signed with the Jacksonville Jaguars on June 2, 2016. Despite not looking that good to coach Doug Marrone in practices, Omameh made the roster over Mackenzy Bernadeau and others. When left guard Luke Joeckel had season-ending surgery in October, Omameh took his place. He was placed on injured reserve on November 21 after sustaining a left foot injury in Week 11 against the Detroit Lions. According to Ryan O'Halloran of The Florida Times-Union, despite his mediocre pass protection performance, in Omameh's six starts (453 snaps) at left guard, he performed superior to the other 4 people who started in 2016 at that position for the team.

now at least references some actual analysis of Omameh's performance. This is the standard I'm thinking of when considering whether a main aspect has at least been "adequately" addressed. Now if we can get the rest of the sections on his NFL career to at least this standard, the article would be well on the way to a retention. – Teratix ₵ 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding Newsbank, the Chicago Public Library has a different set of sources than whomever your Newsbank subscription is through. So our search results will overlap but differ. I have added one source that you listed above. We do not seem to have access to The Star-Ledger at this time, so I have found a source from the time frame of your TSL sources. You do not seem to be hearing me. Omameh is a biography that could be cluttered with WP:Run-of-the-mill content. I have shown with the edits since you listed sources to pursue that the content in those sources is Run-of-the-mill. As per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, & WP:ROUTINE, I will not clutter his article with further ROTM content. User:BeanieFan11 has opted observe this on behalf of WP:NFL. I consider the ROTM content that I added describing how mediocre he is to be unencyclopedic and do not want to add more ROTM content. We are at a point where "Find more stuff" is not acceptable. I think Beanie is impartial. Unless substantial facts that are known to you are missing, you need to explain why you wish to disregard WP:Run-of-the-mill, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, & WP:ROUTINE.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, you don't understand what those essays mean. "Run-of-the-mill" is a concept that relates to notability – it's about whether a particular subject is different enough from the ordinary to deserve an article in the first place, not about what is covered within that article. "Routine" is another concept that relates to notability, not article content – it's about whether something like a wedding announcement, a criminal charge or an everyday sports match deserves its own article.

  Similarly, you don't understand what WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOTEVERYTHING means. "Indiscriminate" is a concept that relates to things like articles that log every single software update for a particular app. An indiscriminate article on Omameh would be something like analysing every NFL match he ever appeared in. When I ask, e.g. that the article use the many secondary sources available to say a little more about his stint with the Saints than Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, that's not "INDISCRIMINATE".

  I've lost my patience here. I've been very clear about the article's obvious failures to adequately cover Omameh's NFL career and the ample secondary sources that haven't been incorporated, even to the point where I had to go out and explicitly pick out five examples for Tony. This GAR has been open for over a month now and there has been every opportunity for interested editors to get it back to a decent standard.

  Barring some substantive improvement, the article should be delisted for failing GAC (3a), adequately addressing main aspects. – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am done. Thanks for your time. Of course a GAR is not an individual effort so others may want to take up the slack.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have the relevant Wikiprojects been notified of this GAR?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The GAR automatically shows up in WikiProjects' article alerts and you notified WikiProject NFL yourself (not exactly in a neutral fashion, I might add). – Teratix ₵ 15:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BeanieFan11, do you think this should be kept or delisted? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Leaning keep, but I want to take a further look later today. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a few extra details. I think its probably good enough to be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no comments on the overall broadness of the article, but the lead needs expansion to fully cover the (new?) body content (GACR1b), especially the College and Personal Life. I'd also suggest dividing the Professional Career section into a couple more paragraphs for readability, although this isn't something I'd hang a GAR on. CMD (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]