Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the New York Jets/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Raul654 18:47, 12 February 2011 [1].

History of the New York Jets[edit]

History of the New York Jets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC), The Writer 2.0 (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... we feel it meets the criteria. It's a GAseen extensive work since the last FAC. While our hope of having it TFA for the Jets victory parade is no more, at least this year, we think you'll find it deserving of the bronze star even if the Jets can never seem to reach theirs.Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Good article, well sourced, all references check out per CheckLinks, up-to-date. The good work one has come to expect from Wehwalt, but with The Writer 2.0, it just makes it better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images look ok, copyright-wise, though the documentation could do with an update on some. Nice work on avoiding unwarranted non-free media; it'd be all too easy to slip in some decorative photos. J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both reviewers. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if they were overlooked. Let me look into them and get back to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking my oppose for now since I don't really have the time to look over the article thoroughly. I have some comments though:
  • I'm concerned with the Jets themselves being a source for some of the stats. I don't know the WP:NFL's stance on this, but the fact that Gastineau and Klecko combined for 40 sacks in 1981 bothers me in particular. Thats kind of fantastical, although not necessarily untrue since they were both prolific pass rushers. Teams have a motive to inflate their players numbers, and sacks were an unofficial stat then. I would suggest saying "according to the Jets" or trying to find a secondary source.
  • I don't understand this sentence (which appears at the beginning of a new section): "Hess had acquired much of the ownership of the Jets; on February 9, 1984, he became full owner when Helen Dillion sold her 25% interest to him." Is the semi colon used properly there? After the semi-colon I expected an example of him acquiring "much ownership of the Jets" but it says he became sole owner, which is more than "much" (its complete). I'm not a grammar expert, but a sentence like "Hess had acquired much of the ownership of the Jets; he bought out John Doe's 5% share in 1982 and Jane Doe's 10% stake in 1983" would make more sense in the context of the semi-colon I think. Again here: "Instead Thomas proved to be injury prone; he played four unproductive seasons and was cut before the 1994 season began." I expected to see a list of his injuries after the semi colon, since even when healthy he underwhelmed.
  • Here's a suggestion/food for thought: I think you could mention once or twice how the Giants were doing in similar time periods for some context since they share the city and compete for fanbase share. In the Giants article I noted that in the mid to late 1960s (when the jints were sucking hard) "Interest in the team was waning, especially with the rise of the AFL's New York Jets, who featured a wide-open style of play and a charismatic young quarterback in Joe Namath." and used this source for that:[2] (the bibliographic info is in the sources section of that article). So maybe a mention of how the team, led by Namath's drawing power, was gaining fans while the Giants were losing them due to their on-field ineptitude could be mentioned. I also mentioned in this daughter article how the Giants trading for Tarkenton was in part motivated by the need to attain someone who could compete with Namath's star power at the gates and used this source:[3] So maybe something like "Namath and the Jets were drawing fans away from the struggling Giants; in 1968 the Giants even acquired qb Tarkenton in part to compete with the Jets in terms of star power." Also in later decades, something like "while the Jets were struggling in the late 80s and early to mid 90s the Giants won two Super Bowls" or "in 1998 the Jets finished with a better record than the Giants for the first time since 1985"[4][5]
I'm busy with some irl issues atm but will definitely do some work on the article in the next few days, and mention anything here that I can'f fix myself. AaronY (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and for changing your !vote. I am reluctant to consider the Jets an unreliable source; I do not believe they would inflate statistics, tough God knows the Jets' statistics could use inflation. I will look into the sack count; I am not positive when the sack became an official statistic. I will look over the article and see if I can't insert a couple of mentions of the Giants, that is a good idea. Obviously the Jets' pathos is set off all the more by the success the Giants have had over the years. I recall in Eshkenazi the '86 Jets being utterly convinced they would have beaten the Giants had they gotten to the Super Bowl. I will read your article and see what I can do, hopefully I can steal some useful references. Might also be worth a mention of the Giants getting a new stadium while the Jets were stuck at decaying Shea (I believe they called it by another word beginning with sh and also having four letters.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing what one can find collecting dust on their bookshelf! I found Stadium Stories: New York Jets written by Randy Lange in 2005. It states that the NFL began recording the sack in 1982 and according to the "unofficial" count, Gastineau had 20 sacks while Klecko recorded 20.5 with Lyons recording 6 sacks and Salaam 7. I confirmed this with a newer text, 100 Things Jets Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die, written just last year that states the same. So it seems 40.5 sacks is the correct amount. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I've gone through and made a few minor changes. Some comments/general suggestions, nothing serious:
    • I added the reason Riggins left as I felt his departure was like a mini turning point in franchise history. I saw this NFL Films thing on him a while back and used an old source I found to reiterate some of what he said there. Could use a newer source.
      • The internet's great; here's that Riggins thing:[6] At 3:45 he talks about leaving the Jets and purely for entertainment's sake at 4:40 he delivers a crazy awesome block. AaronY (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you guys think Keyshawn's book should be mentioned? It caused quite a stir when it came out.
    • Iirc Howard Glenn was the first player to die from injuries suffered on the field in pro football. Maybe that could be worth mentioning.
    • " Two days after the end of the season, Parcells announced his resignation as coach. Parcells stressed that he would never coach another game" I would just remove this last part. This doesn't really have any context for the general reader since its never mentioned that he coached the Cowboys. Right now a non-fan would think he did retire from coaching altogether. You could mention somewhere else that he went back to it, but rather than get into that, I would just remove it to streamline the narrative. AaronY (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, and for working with us all this time. I think The Writer 2.0 has addressed some of your comments, I'm going to look for a source on the Howard Glenn thing. Probably someone will complain that so and so for the Frankford Yellow Jackets really died yada yada, but that's the nature of the beast. Regarding Keyshawn, I think that it is relevant to his own article, but as we give some of the reasons he was dealt, that should be enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: On the question of the use of the Jets' own material as a source, I have looked at other sports team histories which have made it to FA. It is not unusual for the team's own records to be used to cite results, records and team information. In this present case I am a little concerned that some of the cites to the Jets seem to go beyond statistics, e.g. 38, 67a, 67b, 79b. Otherwise, the large number of cites to the Jets' own yearly reviews may reflect that this is a more detailed history than many. A couple of small points:

  • CBS News is not a print sources, so should not be italicized in the refs
  • I believe the same is true of ESPN

Otherwise sources seem OK, though I have not spotchecked. I will try to give a more general review later. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will change those. Thank you for the source review. I do not see the problem with reporting, say, that the Jets lost such a game based on their own team's website. Why is there any thought that it would be inaccurate? The NFL and its teams have websites that are (in my experience) extremely accurate. For what it is worth, as a Jets fan for over 35 years, I have found no inaccuracies on their site. The Jets, as a member of the NFL have access to huge quantities of statistics and league historical information. I would think they would get it right. They are hardly in a position to "puff" their history, given the marked lack of success outside a warm Sunday in Miami in January 1969.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't believe there is any reason for their website to inflate stats though they may need it. However I do have a few secondary sources that we may be able to use should the need arise. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case my point was not clear, I am not querying the use of the Jets' site in respect of results, stats etc. My concern was about non-match information being cited there. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. To my knowledge there are no matters of historical controversy in which the team might not be neutral. I will make a run through the article this weekend to doublecheck that the team is not sourced to anything contentious. Replacing these refs would not benefit the reader if done for no reason; I'd have to replace them with either the NY Times (a pay site) or offline sources, which would make it more difficult for the reader to consult the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times archives are free back to 1987. I used them a lot in the Giants articles. I had a subscription to access the other years back when it was $9.95 a month for 100 articles, but stopped paying when they jacked the prices up. I mispoke above; I was mostly concerned for the one stat I saw cited since sacks were not an official stat then and I think teams were the ones who kept a record of them. Any stat that is tracked by the NFL the Jets wouldn't obviously change because they'd never get away with it, but unofficial ones might be sketchy. But even though the Jets may have been the ones who recorded the stat, once a secondary source cites it, you have to accept it by rule I think. Unofficial stats have a wide history of being fudged but mostly on the college and high school level; "pancake block" numbers are notoriously unreliable iirc. Heck official stats get inflated by some nba teams; high assist point guards are said to get credit for bogus assists when playing at home. Here's a great recent article on the phenomenon:[7] AaronY (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Did a large chunk of reviewing at the last FAC; these couple of comments relate to the newest additions.

  • "The Jets's first regular season home game at the new stadium was on Monday Night Football, September 13, 2010." I feel that the flow would be slightly improved if the date was moved before Monday Night Football somehow.
  • Dash needed for 9-2. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With all due respect to the immense amount of work represented here, I'm disappointed that this has been nominated again in this condition. Getting an article of this size and scope ready is surely a large task, but I'm still finding way too many problems ranging from narrative issues to consistency and typos. There is also apparently another full review going on in Brianboulton's sandbox. Hopefully that will be linked here for reference by other reviewers.

(Note from Brianboulton: I confirm that my informal review will be linked to here when completed, for as long as this review is open. I tend to use the sandbox when I am only able to give intermittent attention to a review.)

    • "intending to move the franchise to Dallas, where there was then no NFL team" Isn't "then" unneeded here? You already specify the past with "was".
      • I've removed it, but please note that the Cowboys were created in reaction to the start of the AFL and began play at the same time. From the distance of fifty years, these events happened close together and I felt it better to have that word.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The franchise first preseason game on August 6, 1960, at the Coliseum against the Los Angeles Chargers." Looks like some words got lost.
    • "Turner had never been a head coach before; he faced a team convinced that Baugh had been treated shabbily by Wismer and he had difficulty uniting the players." I would get rid of the last "he".
    • "The Titans were required wait until the end of the Mets' season before they were allowed to use the Polo Grounds." Confused—I thought it was Shea Stadium where they had this condition? Also, "Mets'" is inconsistent with how you are handling possessives.
It was both. The AFL was an afterthought at this stage, about the same level as motorbike racing, which I believe also used the Polo Grounds in the final years. The Titans had zero leverage. If they got kicked out of the Polo Grounds, they didn't have a lot of options.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least twice you write "enjoyed limited success" or "enjoyed little success". Not crazy about that phrase. It could be read as enjoying having little success.
    • "made the team as a second-teamer" Well, how about "made only the second team". Second team probably bears a wikilink to reserve team—I can't imagine overseas readers even guessing at its meaning.
    • "In mid-July, it was announced that the Jets could not move into Shea Stadium until 1964." Is the year worth repeating here? "In mid-July 1963"? You haven't mentioned the year since the beginning of the last para—I actually had to scan back to recall where I was in the narrative.
    • "On November 8, 1964, both the Jets and Giants played home games; both teams sold out their games; the Jets drew 61,929 fans." Can we please reword to avoid the double semicolon? "both teams sold out their games and the Jets drew 61,929 fans"
    • "The Jets enjoyed a home record of 5–1–1" Of all the "enjoying" I've seen in this article, this one makes sense.
    • "When in August 1969, the Jets faced the Giants in a preseason game at the Yale Bowl." Lost words again?
    • "Although the Jets's fellow tenants, the Mets, matched the Jets's accomplishments by winning a championship themselves, the baseball team's accomplishments forced the Jets to play their first five games on the road." I don't follow the purpose of the "although", and the double "accomplishments" is not very elegant.
    • "New York recovered from a slow start to win its second consecutive Eastern Division championship, but fell to Kansas City in the divisional round of the playoffs, 13–6." Confusing here because you've just written about the Mets... now you're writing "New York" but presumably talking about the Jets. Or are you?
    • Somewhere around the Decline section it becomes clear that the Jets are now playing in the full-on NFL, but you don't really mark the transition in the narrative other than mentioning earlier when it will occur.
It is the first sentence of the third paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The opening of "Final years at Shea" is confusing. We read that the Jets are going to play two games at Giants Stadium.. fine. Why would NYC sue over that? So the settlement is that they can play the two games at Shea, correct? Why are they then playing at Giants Stadium for one game and Shea for the other?
Because the baseball schedule for 1977 precluded the Jets playing more than that (the Mets were already scheduled to be at home the first two weeks of the NFL season). October 2 was the first possible home game at Shea. The Jets still wanted a September game so they would not have to start with three games on the road, and so played it at Giants Stadium (the Giants being away that week) In future years, provision for Jets home games could be built into the baseball schedule. As it was. As to why they sued? NYC did not want to lose the taxes and fees from two games at Shea, to say nothing of the Jets would next ask for a lower rent for playing only six games at Shea.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Jets fell behind the Bills 24–0 in the wild card game and lost 31–27, as their potentially game-winning drive was stopped when the Bills intercepted a Todd pass near Buffalo's goal line." The Jets everywhere else, I think.
    • "The game was preceded by a series of storms that turned the Miami Orange Bowl into a mud pit." This is, I think, the fourth wikilinking of Orange Bowl.
      • Third; one was a pipe to the game Namath played in (that was a redlink for a long time, someone has now written something there). I deleted one, but leaving one in the lede and one on the Super Bowl.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "fourth quarter" and "4th quarter" in different places.
    • "The Jets' lease at Shea Stadium was due to expire after 1983, Hess and New York Mayor Ed Koch attempted to negotiate a new lease for the team." A few things amiss here. Aside from the grammar, "Jets'" is not consistent with the rest of "Jets's". Also, it's been a long time since we've been introduced to "Hess"; I had to scroll back to recall who he was.
    • At the beginning of Meadowlands, it would again be prudent to re-introduce us to "Richard Todd".
    • "In spite of these departures, New York finished 8–7–1 record." Lost words again.
    • "traveled" and "travelled" in different places
    • "Martin chose to have arthroscopic surgery on his knee with four games left in the season." Again, it's been eons since Martin was introduced; I had to scroll way back to find out who it was.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I will work to correct these problems, please feel free to post whatever others you may happen to see. Yes, as Brianboulton sometimes reviews my articles, we have fallen into a habit of my correcting the problems as he prepares his review. He is fine with that, all he asks is that I keep him posted.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted or responded to all the matters you listed above.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sir—you're a gentleman and a scholar. I'll give it another read-through. Am I alone in the issue of forgetting who people are throughout the narrative? I find the problem in almost every article I read. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on how interested and/or knowledgable on the subject matter you are. Personally, I am a moderately knowledgable Jets fan who doesn't go to as many games as he used to (it is such a schlep and not difficult to sell your ticket online if the Jets are doing well ...). So people like Todd and Hess need no introduction for me. That is why feedback from non Jets fans is needed to fine tune how often you introduce or remind. Interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to Support: I carried out a lengthy informal review of this article, having been watching it since its first, unsuccessful FAC a month or two back. My review is linked here. Wehwalt has responded to my points positively, justifying himslf when not in agreement with my suggestions. That's fine. Before committing to full support, however, I would appreciate a little more discussion on three points:-

  • As someone lacking knowledge of American football I found the technical terms confusing, and would have appreciated more explanation. However, Wehwalt very reasonably argues thus: "It is my view that the terminology of American football, in an article about the same, should be treated the same way as musical terminology in a music article. It is simply not possible to begin with do re mi". Touché. I find that argument compelling, but my concern in this respect is reflected in my second point.
  • The article, though not super-long, is long for a sports team history, and I found the level of detail a bit difficult to follow, particularly as much of it is of necessity in sports talk. Is all this detail necessary in a summary article? As I say in my review, this is fine for the Jets fans (or fan), but WP articles should be aimed at a more general readership. I'd be interested to see a comment on this aspect.
  • Finally, as I say in my review, I was taken aback by the abrupt ending. The article simply stops. I would have thought that a short concluding paragraph could be added to round the history off. I know that means adding to the wordcount, but perhaps a saving can be made per above?

Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the third point, I have added a brief conclusion as a quotation. On the point of length, I agree that the article is about the maximum sustainable length for a FA, and if this nomination succeeds, it is likely to be split sometimes in the upcoming year or two. Had the Jets had greater success in the postseason, I would happily have made 2010 the termination point, as it is, we are discussing 1997 or possibly 2009. This will not happen quickly, a split cannot be rushed. However, I do not think it is too long now, it is simply that additional events over the next couple of years, no matter what happens to the Jets, are likely to push the kilobyte count too high. As regards the football talk, I stand by what I said to Brianboulton. These are not informalities, these are technical terms in a multibillion dollar industry that gets worldwide attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the third concern is met and I won't press either of the other two. As with Andy, I would like to give the article a read-through in the next 24 hours - in my case, my first continuous read-through (up to now I've digested in bitesize portions) and, all being well, will be happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have shifted my "leaning" to full support, having now read through the article. I don't think there's much else that needs to be done, and I think Wehwalt has defended his stance impressively. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Withdrawing my opposition at this time. My list was fairly comprehensive, and I'm satisfied that the items were addressed. Would like to do another read-through, and I will either fix or list any other items. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this image to the article, securing the agreement of an admin at Commons here whom I respect for his knowledge of image policy. Also it got a generally positive response here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on further review. The narrative is solid, inconsistencies have been ironed out, and the mild amount of jargon is either explained or linked. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Laser Brain and Brianboulton for your earnest consideration.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you can tell by the sheer volume of work that The Writer 2.0 and I have put into this article, when you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From your first cigarette to your last dying day? --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to all the other dying days ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with regard to Criterion 1a. The article has been polished almost to perfection since I last read it for its previous FAC.[8]. Graham Colm (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Reviewed at both FACs, and everything has been taken care of. A lot of great work has been done during the course of this FAC to get the article up to scratch, and I think it's finally ready for the star. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The broad support for this article is gratifying.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at this when Raul promoted it-- I had one question:

  • 5.3 Mangini: initial success, eventual firing
  • 5.4 Ryan/Sanchez era; move to a new stadium
Why the switch in punctuation style (colon vs. semi-colon)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they should be consistent, reason why they aren't is that I wrote the titles at different times. I'll take care of that, thanks for the comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_the_New_York_Jets/archive2&oldid=1138463027"