Wikipedia:Peer review/Eli Manning pass to David Tyree/archive1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A great sign of wikipedia's versatility that a single play play from only a year ago can have an article. But at the moment it's a bit of a mess and I'm not if any of any of the images in this article should really be their. I'd like to give this article a bit of a clean up and expansion, but with such an unusual subject, I'm not sure where to start.

Thanks, BUC (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments by doncram. I hadn't known about this play before, and it was a fun article for me to read. Great pics. Good development of the topic; i like the brief lead in and i like the topic sentence or two for the section about the naming of the play. Brian will have noted this already, but there is copyediting needed within one paragraph: "Due to the Patriots pressure, Tyree was unable to run his intended route"[citation needed], etc. It should be "Patriots' pressure" with plural possessive. Also i suggest stopping sentence at "down the field.", then new sentence could be: "He stopped at the 30 yard line." Following sentence is garbled: "Initially Tyree caught the ball with both hands, but a swipe by Harrison with his arm, caused his left hand to but knocked off the ball." Then, should be "able to secure possession" rather than "able to secured possession". Otherwise, I don't see any grammar or other low-level problems. Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a Sports Illustrated article that could be useful for expansion purposes: http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1143346/index.htm Giants2008 (17-14) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

I have made numerous fixes for punctuation, grammar and sundry typos. You had better check that I haven't inadvertently altered a meaning. One sentence I couldn't make head or tail of, perhaps because something is missing: "...a swipe by Harrison with his arm caused his left hand to but knocked off the ball".

My main problem, however, is that the article is virtually incomprehensible to me, and I suspect to all who are unfamiliar with American football—probably anyone who isn't a North American, in fact. A general encyclopedia article has to written in a style that allows it to be broadly understood by the general reader. This is, I know, a problem with many sports articles, because individual sports have to an extent developed languages of their own. Thus, phrases like "Manning took the snap in the shotgun formation..." and "Had Manning been sacked, the Giants would have faced a 4th down with around 8 yards to go for a 1st..." are meaningless to those unfamiliar with the sport—I have encountered the same sort of problem with wrestling articles.

Don't the wiki links cover this sort of thing? BUC (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you have tried to resolve the problem with links on some technical terms, though you have omitted some obvious ones such as "reception" and "touchdown". But an article should not require readers constantly to use the link in order to follow its meaning. Some parts of this article need to be redrafted in a form which makes some sense to the non-initiated. A further example of the exclusivity of the article is your assumption that all readers will know what "with 2.42 remaining" means. I assume this is minutes and seconds, but it wouldn't do any harm to be specific.

Other points:-

• The Names section, with its list of 18 terms, seems disproportionate in length to the rest of the article. I would have thought a shorter section, maybe half a dozen names, written in prose rather than list format, would be more appropriate.
• The "Quotation" section consists of excerpts from commentaries. There are no obvious instances of memorable phraseology that justifies them being quoted. Perhaps some commentary could be weaved into the main account of the incident, but five separate excerpts is, in my view, overdoing it, and a separate section is unwarranted.
• In the "spoof" section the wording is: "The catch was spoofed by Justin Timberlake at the 2008 ESBYs. It 'reveals'..." etc. For clarity could you not say "ESBY awards ceremony"? Then, what does "it" refer to, and why is "reveals" in quotes?
• In the same section, you refer to "their accepatance speech". More than one person can't give one speech, so speciify who gave it.
• The Sports Illustrated cover is lacking a fair use rationale. Even with it, two non-free images out of three might be thought unacceptable, but I'm not an image guru.

I am asking a North American reviewer to cast an eye over my review, and also the article, to eliminate any unhelpful advice that I might inadvertently be passing on. Good luck with the article, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments Per Brianboulton's request, I read the article and have some suggestions for improvement.

• I agree with Brian, this article needs to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example the lead does not even give the year of the game, nor does it make explicitly clear which team the players making the play were on. I would also mention that the Patriots were undefeated in the regular season and playoffs to that point, so the Giants were real underdogs. A breif recap of the game to that point would also help - for example Tyree scored the Giants first touchdown in the game, or saying how long that drive took would help readers understand how difficult it is to move a football long distance in a short time. Or point out the distance to the goal line remaining when the play started (not just where they were).
• There is also very little of the article devoted to coverage of and reaction to the pass play in the media. The various names proposed could be put into a discussion (who proposed these names and when). The Sports Illustrated cover article is not mentioned explicitly that I saw - for fair use it should be.
• There are multiple WP:MOS issues with the article - the biggest is a lack of references in many places. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• NOt sure the refs all meet WP:RS - what makes what callers to a radio talk show said notable too? See WP:NN
• The lead is not really a summary of the whole article and should be expanded. Also, as a summary, nothing should be in the lead only (but the NFL films quote is). See WP:LEAD
• I think first, second, third and fourth should be spelled out (for downs).
• Units are supposed to be given in both English and metric units - the {{convert}} template is very useful here.
• The Quotations section did nothing for me - again, put this into a "Critical reception" section or axe it.
• I did not read all of the AfD comments, but there might be some useful ideas there.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]