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 00:10, 12 March 2008.

---

Tyrone Wheatley[edit]

previous FAC (00:07, 6 February 2008)

Check external links

The prior FAC was closed during my efforts to respond to advice. I think I have been making progress and would appreciate feedback to help take this article to featured status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The writing in this article is very clunky. I tried to start a copyedit, but gave up for lack of interest (sports just isn't my thing). I would recommend listing this at WP:LOCE to see if you can get someone else to help out. Mangostar (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your efforts. I just noticed that this was restarted. I thought it was getting close to being promoted. Some of the stylistic changes were not so bad, but the content you removed was important.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't tally support from the significant principle editor; I'm not sure when the custom of adding this began, but I overlook it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It has had a lot of clean up since the first FAC attempt. Good job, PGPirate 14:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good article. Supported last time. Addition of pictures helps also. Malinaccier Public (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. All 107 references check out fine, and the piece is comprehensive. --Slicedpineapple (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First edits from Slicedpineapple (talk · contribs) were all at FAC; no other edit history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking much better, but Sandy brought up some sourcing issues last time that I see are still awaiting resolution.
  • Did you ever hear back from the Detroit Free Press about footnote 13?
    • Did not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also footnotes 57, 71, 77, 91, 100 which had doubts raised about them earlier?
    • I have opened discussions at WT:RS and WT:NFL. No responses. I continue to be unaware of any controvesy regarding PFR or DBF data.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that Sports Illustrated lauded one of those sites for "Britannica-like accuracy, [1] but I can't access that article at the moment, so I don't know which one. (Although, as far as statistical information goes, they're all pretty much the same, in my experience.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably couldn't hurt to have some outside eyes go over it and check for spots with clunky prose. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is a wiki open to all (constructive) editors.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already gone over it once, and you addressed most of my concerns.. I'm afraid that I'm too knowledgable about football and will miss some of the jargon, thus the suggestion. I do think it's come a long way, and I'm on the fence about supporting. I can see Lesser Brain's point below about jargon, which is the main reason I'm not willing to jump right out and support compeltely again. I'm just not the one to do the copyedit because I know the jargon. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, TonyTheTiger, when you ping all of the previous supporters, you should also ping the previous opposers, to avoid canvassing allegations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was just you who restarted the FAC and User:Doc glasgow who I am already awaiting response on his current opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, issues addressed and article copyedited. --Laser brain (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a and other issues. I strongly suggest a copyedit by an uninvolved editor, preferably one who is unfamiliar with American football. There are a lot of minor prose issues throughout; I found several just in the lead. Please have the whole article copyedited, not just the examples below. There is also a lot of language here that comes from American sportscasts and sports journalism ("war-room"?) but it is not appropriate for a general encyclopedia audience. I called out some examples below, but this is where the non-football copyeditor will be a benefit. :)[reply]
  • I hate to say it because I see you struggled with it in the previous nom, but the lead is too long. I empathize because it's hard to determine what is expendable when you have worked on the article. May I suggest asking a third party to read the article and suggest trims?
    • You may have notice the lead is of the format where the first paragraph summarizes the entire article and two through four add a bit more detail. Obviously it could be shortened to just the first paragraph in the extreme or a summary of that if you like. The article seems to be long enough for four paragraphs and people had stopped objecting to the WP:LEAD's length prior to you. I don't really think you can prepare the reader for the current article by removing much more, but suggestions are welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference in the lead to "athlete of the year" reads like that is an everyday thing anyone should be aware of, like teacher or plumber. Is this in reference to a specific award? If so, name the award specifically and not generally.
    • In the main body where you find the refs on is sort of general and the other is a specific award. Athlete of the Year is a fairly common thing that most sports fans who would be interested in this biography would be aware of. When necessary I say "Michigan High School Track and Cross Country Athlete of the Year" in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have edited athlete of the year somewhat and linked the term in this lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is way too much jargon in the lead - please imagine a reader who knows nothing about American sports or the collegiate system of "all-whatever" teams, "first teams" and so on. The whole section would be baffling.
    • In truth the problem is that Tyrone Wheatley is a slightly lower level athlete than would usually get a WP:FAC depth article written about him. Winning the Big Ten Offensive Player of the year is just a slight shade below say winning a Doak Walker Award or Heisman Trophy. Thus, it has no link to use for it. I think an award like that is still notable although a WP:WPBIO or WP:MICH reader might not know what it is. WP:NFL and WP:CFB readers would know it. All-American and All-Big Ten are notable things that probably belong for an athlete of this level of accomplishment. If I were writing an Archie Griffin or Michael Jordan article they would have similar amounts of jargon, but would emphasize linkable awards. Its a little tough on guys who were never All-stars (All-Pro/Pro Bowl for football) because their jargon is slightly less notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In college, he was a first team All-Big Ten Conference athlete on Big Ten Champions..." What do you mean by "on Big Ten Champions"? Is that a TV show, or...? I went to a Big Ten school and I still don't know what that means.
    • A Big Ten Champion is a team or individual who wins a Big Ten Championship. Text changed. If further explanation is necessary, please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2007, Wheatley began his football head coaching career at his high school alma mater by taking them to the state playoffs..." Rewrite.. it reads like that's the very first thing he did when he got there. Got in a bus and drove them to the playoffs.
    • Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He ranks among the all-time rushing leaders..." First mention of rushing. What's that? To me and you it's a common term because we might watch football, but we can't take that for granted.
    • Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was All-Big Ten in either football or track..." He was on the All-Big Ten team, but he wasn't All-Big Ten itself.
  • A "tardy dawdler"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Suggest something less Victorian.
    • Can I suggest "lackadaisical laggard"? --maclean 01:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any phrase that conveys that he was troubled by allegations of both being late and being unfocussed is fine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Oakland, his popularity and talent emerged as he both led..." Don't split "he led" with "both". There are many of these throughout the article.
    • Seems to be done now by someone else.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing about a season record as "to go 9-2" is too informal.. too sportscaster-ish.
    • Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More: "he ran track"
    • I presume you would prefer competed in track.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Early Life section, you first say that Wheatley watched over his siblings and cousins until he became a professional athlete, but a few sentences later you say his guardianship continued while he was a professional athlete.
  • The passages about Leslie Mongo get too informal. Why refer to Mongo as "Leslie"? You also slip into referring to Wheatley as "Tyrone".
    • Revised.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He decided to move Leslie to New Jersey for school and opportunities." Such as?
    • To get a college athletic scholarship as is mentioned in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More later.--Laser brain (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I provided a copyedit for some of the article from the bottom up. I hope others can help with the lead and first couple sections. I remedied much of the extra long sentences and some of the jargon (and idioms). It is unavoidably number-heavy. --maclean 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I'll be giving this article a thorough copyedit over the next week before making my final judgment. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: copyedit concerns appear resolved, non-reliable sources still present. Please see WP:SPS. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/about/ is clearly a non-reliable source, but is used repeatedly in the article:

My name is Doug Drinen. I am a mathematician and a sports fan, so it shouldn't surprise you to learn that I am obsessed with football data. I collect it like some people collect stamps. I've been doing that for years now and the result was, up until now, an extensive but extremely unorganized collection of dozens of files spread across a few different computers and not connected in any way. Recently, I decided to organize it and make it available for public consumption. The result is pro-football-reference.com, which I believe is the most complete and most organized collection of football data on the web.

This article looks ready to promote as soon as this is dealt with, by removing the unsourced statements or sourcing them to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sports Illustrated once described Pro-Football reference as "a comprehensive source with Britannica-like accuracy." (Adam Duerson. "Welcome sites". Sports illustrated. March 27, 2006. page. 63. Available from Newsbank.) I've used similar sites for basketball articles, and I've never had any problems, at least as far as statistical information goes. They're far more reliable than the Sporting News registers (like this), which are always full of typos and missing information. Zagalejo^^^ 21:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Zagalejo. The Sports Illustrated quote should resolve reliability concerns, and is the kind of response that could have established reliability weeks ago on this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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