Jump to content

Talk:Favre's Dad Game

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Moved to mainspace by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 49 past nominations.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article looks good. The only issue is that I don't see the quote from the hook "greatest games of his fabulous career" in the article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, it is the second sentence of the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to the source, but in the article Favre's Dad Game I'm not seeing where the quote "one of the greatest games of his fabulous career" is mentioned. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Added BeanieFan11. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Favre's Dad Game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 20:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 21:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm GhostRiver. I'll be reviewing this article against the good article criteria. By doing so, I am earning points for the WikiCup and the January 2025 GAN Backlog Drive. Although a quid pro quo review is not necessary, it is appreciated. You can see what open good article nominations I have here.

I will go through the article section by section checking it against the criteria. Once I have finished my review, I will place the article on hold, giving you seven days to respond. If you need more time, just reach out! While I'll always put the article on hold once it's ready for you to look at, you may start making changes before I complete my review. — GhostRiver 21:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

[edit]

Background

[edit]

Game summary

[edit]

First half

[edit]
  • The Raiders started the game with the ball and after a quick first down, punted the ball. → The Raiders started the game with possession of the ball and punted after a quick first down.

Second half

[edit]

Analysis

[edit]
  • Post-game analysis though focused on Favre's fortitude to play, his spectacular performance and the emotional response from fans, teammates and his family during and after the game. It's hard to say if this is true given that only one article is linked.
  • With the game well in hand, the Packers pulled Favre, although he still finished the game with 399 yards (the second most of his career at the time). This should probably be in the game recap above, with the exact point at which he was replaced and who replaced him.
    • I don't really go into any changes in players in the recap. It is really "this is what happened" whereas this section discusses how the game was coached and player, which include these type of decisions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • with multiple catches being a high level of difficulty. → successfully completing multiple high-difficulty catches.
  • Sources noted that it appeared multiple times that Favre would just heave a ball deep down the field and the Packers wide receivers would make the challenging catch. Is this in the CBS58 video? I don't see it in the WSJ clippings
    • The CBS58 source says his wide receivers making spectacular plays; the MJS source says When Favre hurried a heave into the end zone from midfield and Walker came down with a leaping catch in double coverage for a touchdown, the Packers had a 24-7 lead and the WSJ describes some of the spectacular catches. That said, its a bit repetitive, so I just deleted it altogether. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

Legacy

[edit]
[edit]

General comments

[edit]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

Since GhostRiver seems to have abandoned this review, I will take over. I shall leave some comments tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Epicgenius! Please let me know when you have completed your review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good, so I'm passing this GAN now. Epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Prose, POV, and coverage

[edit]

General:

  • Not really a GA issue, but I feel like this could have a better short description than Notable NFL game. I suggest at least including the year.

Lead:

  • Para 1: "The day before the game, Favre's father Irvin died while driving after suffering a heart attack." - This sentence feels a bit convoluted. Did he have a heart attack while driving? (If that's the case, I recommend "died after suffering a heart attack while driving".) Or did he have a heart attack, decide to drive anyway, and then die?
  • Para 2: "In 2019, the NFL identified this game as the 52nd best in NFL history." - I recommend "league history" instead of "NFL history" to prevent repetition.

More in a bit.

Background:
  • Para 1: "Both the Green Bay Packers and Oakland Raiders entered the 2003 NFL season after going to the playoffs the previous year, with the Raiders losing Super Bowl XXXVII to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers." - Might be worth linking playoffs for those who are unfamiliar. (Americans are almost definitely familiar with the term; non-Americans, not so much).
  • Para 1: "Through 10 games, the Packers were 5–5" - I initially interpreted this to mean that they scored 5-5 in each of ten games. Looking at the source, however, it looks like that they lost 5 and won 5.
  • Para 1: "The Packers were set to travel to Network Associates Coliseum in Oakland" - Since you linked Network Associates Coliseum here, I'd link Oakland as well.
  • Para 2: "Sunday night, the day before the game, Brett Favre's father Irvin died while driving in Mississippi" - You mention the date of the game in the infobox and the lead, but I'd also mention the date too. It isn't immediately clear that "Sunday night" refers to "December 21, 2003", unless the reader already skimmed the infobox and lead.
  • Para 2: "After being informed of Irvin's death, the Packers indicated that they would allow Favre to determine whether he would play. Later that day, Favre and the Packers announced that he would play in the game, with Favre stating his belief that his father would have wanted him to play." - I feel like this can be combined into one sentence. Favre was given a choice to play or sit out, and he chose to play.
    • I disagree. It would just be too long, especially with the phrase about his reason for playing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      My main concern is more that you used two sentences to express the idea that Favre was given a choice to play or sit out, but that he chose to play. I was thinking more along the lines of cutting most the first sentence: "Though the Packers gave Favre the option to sit out the game, Favre decided to play, stating his belief that his father would have wanted him to play." – Epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "It was later determined that Irvin died of a heart attack while driving, causing him to swerve off of the road" - Ah, I see how Irvin died now. In that case, I'd edit the lead to say "died after suffering a heart attack while driving", as mentioned above.
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First half:
  • Similarly, I feel like non-American football enthusiasts would not know what a "Ryan Longwell field goal" or a "three-and-out" is. Perhaps glossing these terms would help.
  • To clarify, was the score after the second quarter 31-7?
  • Ref 11 here links to a generic game-summary page, rather than the play by play page that actually verifies much of this paragraph.
Second half:
  • I'd link fumble (you and I know what this is, but again, the term might not be well known to non-American readers).
Box score:
Analysis:
  • "Second-most" should have a hyphen, since "most" modifies the word "second". (Without the hyphen, someone might interpret it as the second time where he got the "most of his career", not "second behind the most that he ever got in his career".)
  • "Fans, including Raiders fans," - Is this referring to both fans of Favre himself and Raiders fans?
I'll do the Aftermath section shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath:
  • Para 1: "However, Cardinals' quarterback" - Is it just "Cardinals" (no "the"), or "the Cardinals"?
  • Para 2: "The next week, the Packers traveled to Philadelphia ... in what became known as the 4th and 26 game." - The positioning of the "4th and 26" link is suboptimal, because currently, people have to read through four sentences before realizing that this is known as the 4th and 26 game. There are two alternatives that I think you can go with:
    • The link could be moved up; e.g. "The next week, the Packers traveled to Philadelphia to play the Eagles in the Divisional round of the playoffs, in what became known as the 4th and 26 game."
    • You can move the link so the text "win 20–17" links to 4th and 26. You already do the same thing earlier in the paragraph, with "a 33–27 victory".
Legacy:
  • "His "ironman" persona grew stronger," - Perhaps you can clarify this a little bit, since this is the first time you mention his ironman persona.
@Gonzo fan2007, that's all from me. Putting this on hold; I think the article can benefit from a few minor changes, as outlined above, but otherwise this looks good. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • I agree with GhostRiver's comment above regarding ref 19; strictly speaking, the USA Today is a newspaper, not just a website. As a compromise, I'd change this to {{cite news}} and change the |work= parameter to USA Today.
    • I disagree and don't see this as part of the GA criteria. I am consistent with my reference format and the reference reasonably provides enough information to find and verify the content of the article. I think this meets GAC 2(a) and 2(b). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. Strictly speaking, it is formatted consistently with other web-based cites. It's just that the source-formatting script I use, wants to change this to "USA Today". – Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that you have two sets of references whose titles end in "Part 1" and "Part 2". As of this version, these are refs 12/13 and 14/15. Unless "Part 1" and "Part 2" are part of the actual article title, I would consider removing these, because the page numbers for these news articles. are already given.
    • I use this differentiation for articles split in two pages. Been using it for years to make it easy to identify each part of one article. Until {{Cite web}} can support two links and two archive links without silly end-arounds, this is my preferred way of dealing with these situations. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for explaining. Would you be willing to WP:BUNDLE these references, in that case? For example:
      <ref name="REMEM1">
* Part 1: {{Cite news | url = https://www.newspapers.com/article/wisconsin-state-journal-one-to-remember/158142454/ | title = One to remember | last = Wilde | first = Jason | date = December 23, 2003 | access-date = October 30, 2024 | newspaper = [[Wisconsin State Journal]] | type = clipping | via = [[Newspapers.com]] | page = C1}}
* Part 2: {{Cite news | url = https://www.newspapers.com/article/wisconsin-state-journal-one-to-remember/158142487/ | title = One to remember | last = Wilde | first = Jason | date = December 23, 2003 | access-date = October 30, 2024 | newspaper = [[Wisconsin State Journal]] | type = clipping | via = [[Newspapers.com]] | page = C3}}
</ref>
      Or something like that. I'm not totally opposed to leaving "Part 1", "Part 2", etc. in the refs; however, it does seem strange given that these are not part of the actual titles of these references. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks as of this version.

  • 2 ("2002 Oakland Raiders Rosters, Stats, Schedule, Team Draftees". Pro-Football-Reference.com. Archived from the original on January 11, 2018.) - Checks out.
  • 3 ("2003 Oakland Raiders Rosters, Stats, Schedule, Team Draftees". Pro-Football-Reference.com. Archived from the original on February 24, 2018.) - First use checks out. For the second use, I can't see where this verifies "set to travel to Network Associates Coliseum in Oakland".
  • 14/15 (Oates, Tom (December 23, 2003). "Another amazing chapter". Wisconsin State Journal (clipping). pp. C1, C3.) - Checks out, though you could specify that it was one analyst who said that (currently, the article says "Post-game analysis", rather than "A post-game analysis").
  • 19 ("Day After Father's Death, Favre Shreds the Raiders". The New York Times. Associated Press. December 23, 2003.) - Most of this checks out except the Cardinals' stats. I don't see the stats in ref 4 ("2003 Green Bay Packers Rosters, Stats, Schedule, Team Draftees". Pro-Football-Reference.com.), but I may just be misinterpreting the webpage.
  • 25 ("Week 16 – Favre's Legendary MNF game after his dad passed away". NFL.com): I guess it checks out if you look at the URL.

There are some minor verification issues, but I'm going to assume that this is the result of bundling several references together in some places. Epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Nothing has changed with regards to the image and copyright status since GhostRiver's initial review. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Favre%27s_Dad_Game&oldid=1275067473"