Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Football League Players Association/archive1

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 GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [1].

---

National Football League Players Association

National Football League Players Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/National Football League Players Association/archive1

• Featured article review/National Football League Players Association/archive1

Nominator(s): The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 19:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I feel it meets the criteria. A little over a year ago, some of the pieces were in place however, the article was largely in disarray and what I thought would be a back-breaking venture actually turned into a very informative history lesson regarding the functions of the NFLPA and how they protect and champion the rights of professional football players. I was quite intrigued by how primitive the NFL was in its heyday; of course now we have lockouts and strikes at the drop of a hat. But who doesn't like to watch people fight over money?! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 19:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Excellent article. I'll have a more thorough look later, but here are a couple points for possible consideration. These are based upon parts of the history I know about or have read about.

• It might be worth making clearer that in addition to complaining about not being paid for exhibition games, players were typically not paid for participating in training camp (and only got paid for making the roster and playing in regular-season games, as the article says).
• You also might consider a very brief explanation of why the Bears' players didn't sign up for the NFLPA in the early days. I'm almost sure it was out of loyalty to Halas, and I can find some sources on that if you're interested. That said, it isn't necessary to get into too much detail on this point.
• You could also consider explaining in a little more depth why Cleveland Browns players were instrumental in the founding of the NFLPA. Paul Brown was a notoriously tough negotiator on salaries even though the team consistently reached the NFL Championship Game in the early 1950s, and many of his players felt they weren't getting their due. I can give you some sourcing on this if you need it, too.

These are just suggestions, really. All in all, great stuff. --Batard0 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your insight. I'd be interested in those sources (per your second and third points) if you have them readily available. I will admit finding sources for the article was not easy at times. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 12:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Other comments and observations in the lead (will try to add more later). These are mainly quibbles and copyedits:

• Should the first sentence say "the labor organization that represents professional football players" instead of "the labor organization for the professional football players"? I think "for" is a tiny bit vague, although the average reader will probably understand quickly. Is "represents" accurate? Also, you might consider saying "professional American football players" for the benefit of association football fans.
• In "led by its president", I think "its" could probably be removed without altering the meaning.
• Suggest rephrasing the following: "In the early years of the NFL, bargaining took place between player and management; team owners were reluctant to engage in collecting bargaining." to "In the early years of the NFL, contractual negotiations took place between player and management; team owners were reluctant to engage in collective bargaining." It is collective bargaining, not collecting bargaining, right? Apologies in advance if I'm not getting labor terms right.
• "League rules which punished" -> "League rules that punished" is perhaps better here.
• "for dealing with the NFL's rivals" might be clarified -- I suggest letting us know what kinds of dealings these are. I think we're talking about players who jumped leagues and signed with the NFL's rivals, but I'll leave it to you to consider.
• You might specify when the NFLPA was formed in the second paragraph.
• "for the players" -> "for players" suffices here, I think.
• "has the responsibility to represent and protect" could be simplified to "represents and protects"
• "discipline which the organization" -> "discipline that the organization" might work better here.
• "bargaining agreement are being adhered to" -> could remove "being" without changing the meaning.
• "enhance and defends" should be "enhances and defends," although I'd consider simplifying this whole bit to "defends"
• I can go in there and do some copyedit-type stuff to save you the hassle, if you'd like, with revert and discuss if there's disagreement. --Batard0 (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In terms of the copyediting, I'm flexible either way. Whichever works best for you. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Source comment – What makes Real Clear Sports (ref 31) a reliable source? The other sources appear reliable, though I haven't checked the formatting closely or performed spot-checks. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It's in the mold of ESPN and has been cited by them and other reliable news sources such as The New York Times, Houston Chronicle, CNN, the Los Angeles Times as being a reliable source for sporting news. If it's that suspect I can easily find another source. Thank you for your comments. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 21:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the article again and didn't see this source. Did you remove it? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I did. I replaced it with a source from the NFLPA's website. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Image check - logo appears problematic and needs more info (Done). Can you clarify, why File:NFLPA_Red_w_black_wdmrk.png is PD? (Fair-use uploaded)

• NFLPA website claims a generic copyright on their trademarks and logos (see Terms of Use) and the commons tag requires additional copyright info anyway.
• You could use a FUR (if you host the file on Wikipedia itself) or maybe PD-textlogo, though the logo is borderline original and may not meet the treshhold to be copyright-free itself.
• If all else fails, the good people at commons:licensing or similar talkpages could assist with deeper copyright knowledge.
• (Unlikely, but if the original uploader was authorized by NFLPA, this should be clarified in the summary.) GermanJoe (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that the NFLPA through "nflpagirl" released their logo into the public domain. I would suggest that TW 2.0 re-upload to en.wi as fair use. The image of the player takes the "just text" argument out of play, so it's going to need fair use if it stays, which it should.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Wehwalt's suggestion, I've re-uploaded the image using Fair Use. Hopefully that will resolve the issue. Thank you both for your assistance. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 23:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem solved with a fair-use upload on Wiki, thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support I've reviewed this article at least twice. With TW 2.0's skills and the support of other editors, it meets FA criteria. Source check not done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your support and thoughts as always. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• "contractual negotiations took place between player and management". Is "player" supposed to be plural?
• For the lead, I wonder if "uncapped season" is a bit too jargony. What do you think of "season without a salary cap" as a replacement?
• Formation and struggle for recognition: "that uniforms and equipment paid for and maintained at the clubs' expense" Add "be" before "paid"?
• Gene Upshaw era: Quotation mark missing in Plan B free agency.
• "The agreement also established a salary floor". En dash after this should be spaced, or you could make it a bigger em dash and keep it unspaced. This violates the MoS as it stands now.
• En dash needed for 30-2.
• DeMaurice Smith era: Ref 45 should be moved to after the semi-colon. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 12:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry must have missed your fifth point. I replaced it with an em dash. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments: This seems quite interesting, even to someone who has little knowledge of football. However, the prose needs a little work, and there are parts of the article so far where I am completely lost. Maybe a little more explanation within the article rather than relying on a link. I've read the lead and Early history sections so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "is the labor organization that represents the professional American football players in the National Football League (NFL).": Probably just a personal preference, but I'm not sure "that represents" flows quite as well as "representing", but not a big issue.
• A little jarring to have two consecutive sentences beginning with -ed: "Headquartered…", "Founded…" Maybe just replace the first one with "The NFLPA, which has headquarters…"
• "to provide players with a formal representative": Sounds like one chap doing all the work. Maybe "formal representation"?
• I'm afraid the third paragraph of the lead baffles me completely. I'm really not sure who is doing what to whom.

• I'm still not sure on this one, but maybe will be able to clarify what I'm not sure about when I've read the whole article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• "including filing grievances against player discipline": Again, -ing -ing is a little jarring.
• Maybe say briefly in the lead what a collective bargaining agreement is, rather than relying on the link?

Early history

• Early history is all one section, so why does it have a sub-heading, when everything is contained in that one section.
• "The establishment of the National Football League in 1920 saw…": I'm emphatically not a fan of "saw" in this sense.
• "often saddled with poor talent, attendance rates and financial difficulties": Not too sure what this means. Poor talent? Does this mean the players were not very good?

• A little clearer now, but "often saddled with poor player talent, attendance rates and financial difficulties" suggests that the teams had "poor financial difficulties". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• "players were provided no formal representation": I think this would be better with a "with".
• "offered to increase his salary": Fussy point, but "increase" suggests they were paying him already and gave him more. Maybe "offered him a greater salary", but I'm possibly being ridiculous.
• "unable…unable" in the section of Radovich. Also, could we have a date for him lawsuit?
• "The players grew tired of incidents such as these and complained.": Who to? Each other? Fans? Press? Higher authorities in the game?
• What year did Gibron and Lavelli approach Miller?
• "Gibron, Lavelli, and Miller, by way of their associations with Cleveland, were instrumental in the founding of the union due to Paul Brown's staunch view that "it was both just and necessary that management could cut, trade, bench, blackball and own in perpetuity anyone and everyone that it wanted"." Something a little off here. Is this saying that Brown's attitude influenced Gibron, Lavelli and Miller? Or that Miller's attitude was instrumental in the founding of the union? The "due to" doesn't quite work.
• "Miller, a former Notre Dame football player turned lawyer continued to represent the NFLPA in their early days.": We already know he is a lawyer, so I don't think this needs repeating. And we just read that he was assistant coach at the Cleveland Browns, so I think introducing him in this way here is a little confusing. If it is necessary to say he played for Notre Dame, do it on the first mention.
• "Unable to win the owners' attention by organizing…": Organizing what? This is sort of hanging; does it mean unable to win attention through the act of formation?
• "threatened to bring an antitrust lawsuit against the league": A what? Maybe explain as well as link.
• "From its inception, the members of the NFLPA were divided over whether it should act as a professional association or a union": The subjects are clashing here: as written, this seems to refer to the inception of the members. Maybe "From the inception of the NFLPA, its members…"
• "Against the wishes of NFLPA president Pete Retzlaff and later Bernie Parrish, Miller was reluctant to engage in collective bargaining…": Later in what sense? Was he later the NFLPA president, or did he disagree at a later date? Also, this does not quite work. Maybe "Against the wishes of the NFLPA president […] Miller ran the association as a "grievance committee" rather than engage in collective bargaining".
• "NFL players viewed the new league as potential leverage for them to improve their contracts. The NFL tried to discourage using the AFL as leverage…": Leverage … leverage.
• A few more "leverages" in this section make the word seem overused.
• "Sources speculated that Miller quit…": What are sources in this sense? A source in the sense of wikipedia sourcing cannot speculate as it is a text. If it means sources in the sense of inside information, surely they would know the truth rather than speculate?

More to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I was able to address the majority of your concerns in those two sections. Hopefully it reads more fluidly now. It would seem somewhat awkward to explain the antitrust lawsuit in the middle of that sentence but I'm open to suggestions. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

More comments: A few more from the "Recognition and certification" section. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Six months after the NFLPA declared itself an independent union, many players were dissatisfied with the lack of compensation the teams provided.": Not sure about starting with "Six months after…" Seems a slightly arbitrary date, and the point is confusing. Were the players dissatisfied with the NFLPAs performance after six months, or is the players' unhappiness unrelated to this, and these incidents just happened to occur after six months?

• Just to clarify my point, from what does the six months arise? Is it that the players were not happy with the NFLPA after 6 months? Or that the strike vote came after 6 months? I've no problem with "six months" being here, I would just like a little more precision as I think it's ambiguous. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Although a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) resulted": How did this result from the strike and lockout? It does not immediately seem to follow.
• Lots of use of "former" in the second paragraph. Maybe some variation: we have one sentence which has "former NFL players … former AFL player".
• "The strike lasted for two days ending with a new four year agreement which was reached after the owners threatened to cancel the season.": What sort of agreement? A CBA?
• "Even before the 1974 strike,…": Given that this section is to tell us about the strike, it is possibly not a good idea to begin the section like this, when we don't know what it is yet!
• "instead choosing to pursue free agency through the Mackey lawsuit": Through the what?
• I'm a bit lost again how this lawsuit invalidated the Rozelle Rule. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I've done:

• I changed the sentence from "offered to increase his salary" to "offered him a greater salary"
• I changed the wording so that the bit about financial difficulties comes before the poor player talent and attendance rates
• I clarified the type of agreement (CBA) that came after the two day strike
• I removed the "Even before the 1974 strike"

Some points I wanted to bring up:

• It is not clearly stated when Gibron and Lavelli approached Miller it is just stated that despite some early reluctance he accepted their offer in 1956.
• The six month number, I feel, isn't all that arbitrary: leading up to that point the union became frustrated with its lack of progress and as you'll notice six months coincides with the start of the strike/lockout that occurs as a result of this sentiment.
• When you asked what was the Mackey lawsuit, it was stated at the beginning of the sentence that it was filed by John Mackey in 1971 challenging the Rozelle Rule which brings me to my next point: the ruling invalidated the Rozelle Rule because prior to that teams would be able to sign free agents however the league commissioner had the authority to award the team losing the particular free agent multiple players from the team he's signing with (Basically you sign a really good player but run the risk of losing other valuable players on your roster). That point is explained in the paragraph--I could insert another mention of it but I'm not exactly certain how to go about doing that at this point.
• To your point about an agreement resulting after a strike and lockout, both sides came together and found some sort of common ground though the owners were still reluctant to truly increase benefits however, this is not explicitly stated in any sources I have read.
• I'm still trying to come up with an explanation for the antitrust lawsuit without it making the sentence look terribly awkward. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 15:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Replies: I think my problem at the moment is that parts of this article are not too easy for the general reader to understand. Maybe you need a background in the NFL, or in law, but I find I have to read each part several times to understand it. This may say more about me that the article! Also, it certainly would not lead me to oppose but may make it harder to support. To take "instead choosing to pursue free agency through the Mackey lawsuit filed three years before", it is not obvious to me how the Mackey lawsuit brought about the option to pursue free agency. I understand more or less what the Rozelle Rule was, but can't see how the Mackey lawsuit stopped/changed it. I think a fairly obvious point which is not explicitly stated but would make it easier to follow is to state that the NFLPA won the lawsuit. Also, at the start of the paragraph, maybe explain the Rozelle rule, then state that the NFLPA challenged it in court; currently, the challenge comes before the explanation of what is being challenged. And I think there is a slight disconnect between the way the rule is described ("allowed the commissioner to award compensation, which included players, to a team losing a free agent") and "instead of choosing to pursue free agency through the Mackey lawsuit". To the non-specialist eye, it seems that free agency was allowed but there was a penalty; so then saying that the players could pursue free agency through the ruling... It is not made explicit what the difference is. And I think it is this lack of explicitness with which I am currently struggling. But this may possibly just be me, and please feel free to tell me to stop being ridiculous. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

More comments: Read through to the end now. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any particular reason why "For more information, see 1987 NFL Season" is in the middle of a section? It looks a little odd, and I think the MoS suggests that it should go below the section title.
• "During his time as tenure, he oversaw the 1987 strike...": Once more, the article is referring to something when it has not yet told us what it is.
• "The NFLPA struck for a month in 1987 upon the expiration of the 1982 CBA with the major matter in dispute being the league's free-agent policy...": A little clunky. Maybe "The NFLPA struck for a month in 1987 upon the expiration of the 1982 CBA; the league's free-agent policy was the major matter in dispute."
• "Having failed to achieve their demands, and given the willingness of the players to cross the picket lines and networks to broadcast the replacement games, despite a 20% drop in ratings, the union voted to end the strike on October 15, 1987 without a collective bargaining agreement in place.": Long sentence, with too much going on. Maybe "Given the willingness of the players to cross the picket lines and networks to broadcast the replacement games, despite a 20% drop in ratings, the union failed to achieve their demands. The strike ended on October 15, 1987, without a collective bargaining agreement in place."
• "The union filed a new antitrust suit, and on December 30, the NFLPA asked federal judge David Doty to rule that the league’s exemption from the federal antitrust laws had ended with the CBA and that players were free to challenge free agency restrictions and seek damages under those laws.": Another long sentence with a lot going on. This doesn't make it easier to follow some quite complicated ideas.
• "Smith has been largely praised...": Who has praised him? Players? Teams? Journalists? Makes quite a difference who did it.
• "found his leadership style to be too confining": What does it mean to be a "confining" leader?
• "However, the NFLPA filed papers to decertify as a union on March 11, 2011 and filed an antitrust suit, with lead plaintiffs quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees, to enjoin the lockout.": The phrasing makes it ambiguous who is "enjoining": maybe better to move the list of plaintiffs to after "to enjoin the lockout".
• "The league asked Nelson to stay the order while it appeals to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals": Why the switch to the present tense?
• "After the emergence of information pertaining to what would later be dubbed as Bountygate, where New Orleans Saints players were allegedly paid bonuses for hits that injured opposing players, the NFLPA, on behalf of Will Smith, Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargrove, three players suspended as a result of an investigation by the NFL, filed a lawsuit against the league." Very long sentence, needs splitting.
• Having read the whole article, I'm still not too sure why the lead concentrates so much on the 2011 dispute rather than any others. As it is the most recent, and affects current playing conditions, I can appreciate that it needs a specific mention in the lead, but I question whether it needs to be so detailed in the lead.
• Also going back to the lead, "Founded in 1956, the NFLPA was established to provide players with formal representation to negotiate compensation and the nomenclature of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which regulates the terms and conditions of the workplace, with NFL franchises." What is the purpose of "and the nomenclature of a collective bargaining agreement" here. Is this to give a definition of CBA? If so, it is not too clear. Just looking through the article, it would be good to have a simple definition of a CBA somewhere, and to explain what "antitrust" means. While these can be explained by following a link, I always think it is better in a FA to have this explanation within the article to remove the need to follow a link. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe at this point, I've addressed the majority of your concerns. I still have to provide a definition for the CBA and further explain the Mackey lawsuit/Rozelle Rule outcome and I hope to finish that by the end of today. Per your point about a CBA resulting from the strike and lockout, the sources do not specifically state how it came about but just that it did. Obviously there was some sort of negotiation but that's pure speculation unless someone else can suggest a source that explicitly states so. One other thing: about the lead, I know there is an emphasis on 2011 and you're right that's due to the fact that it's the most recent issue. I can include more about other CBAs if you think it would be a good idea but I don't want to turn it into a laundry list either. Thoughts? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Leaning supportComment: All the changes look good, and I will be happy to switch to full support once the last clarifications mentioned above are made. Also, feel free to disagree on any remaining points, as there may be things which it is impossible to explain simply within the scope of this article. Regarding the lead, maybe just say something like "the most recent CBA arose when..." or some similar wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It took some time but I think we've just about made it through. I included the explanation of the Rozelle/Mackey outcome and the antitrust lawsuit, I've hopefully cleared up the six month issue, I removed the mention of the 1987 strike in the opening of the Upshaw era and I added some language to the lead regarding the recent CBA. If there are any other points you'd like to bring up please let me know but otherwise, I think we've about hit the nail on the head. Thanks for sticking with me through this. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Support: Everything has been addressed, and I think this is now pretty accessible to the general reader. Although I cannot speak on comprehensiveness, I am happy to switch to full support now. The Writer 2.0 has been exceptionally patient with my fussy requests and nit-picks, and has done an excellent job of making it clear for non-experts like myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and kind words. I was happy to do it—quality is what it's all about. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment; very nice article, I'm still reading through it, but it definitely looks to be FA material. I agree with the comment above about the third paragraph in the lede section, especially the first sentence. It almost reads backwards to me and I think could use a little copyediting. I'd do it, but I'm not sure about the best way to express the content in that paragraph. Dreadstar ☥ 20:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Provisional support – I think the article by and large meets the FA criteria, and am satisfied with the fixes that have been made in response to my comments and Sarastro's. Once the lead has been adjusted to remedy the issue expressed above, and source spot-checks have been done, this can be considered a full support. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I thank you both for your kind input. I realize the language is unfamiliar to the reader especially before having read the entire article so I simplified it and hopefully made it a bit clearer. Although it's shortened, I believe it still effectively explains the function of the NFLPA. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Giants has approved the changes and made a minor tweak. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 04:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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