Wikipedia:Peer review/National Football League Players Association/archive1

National Football League Players Association

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…after extensive revision by TravisBernard, 66.234.33.8 and myself, we would like to take the article to FAC and would appreciate feedback before doing so.

Thanks, The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 23:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments by Lemonade51

Thank you all for your effort on this – it's a very well written article. This does have the potential to be a WP:FAC. Good to see that the references are consistent. Without going into prose, the only trouble I have is in some cases the comma is overused in the wrong areas. Though at the time of doing this I am in desperate need of forty winks. Below are some suggestions/feedback:

There are three dablinks.
No need to put a comma between the month and date (such as 9 June, 2001 → 9 June 2001). See WP:DATES for more info. That applies to the references.
"It has been at times a professional association, as well as a labor union." Tad ambiguous. You need to rephrase that, the use of 'at times' isn't appropriate in this case.
In Precertification, "Creighton Miller, who was a former Notre Dame football player turned lawyer, continued to..."; no need for comma between continued and lawyer.
For Refs 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19, use the template (subscription required) instead of 'Fee for article'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed all of the points you bought up. Thank you for the feedback! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Sorry to be so slow to review.

Lede

"the goal of the organization" The thing is, it has, I gather, achieved this goal (except when it chooses to lay down the burden, of course). Perhaps "function"?
Break up that sentence in the first paragraph.
In my opinion, in American English, the use of titles like "President" and "Executive Director" before a name of someone who does not hold public office looks mildly pretentious. I would go with "led by its president, ..."
"receive official recognition by the NFL " perhaps, "recognized as the bargaining agent for the players by the NFL"
I am somewhat uncomfortable with the repeated use of the passive voice in the second paragraph combined with causation being ascribed to a lawsuit. It makes for a very vague sounding paragraph.
"the extended 1993 CBA," I know what this means, the reader may not.
The third paragraph seems much too detailed. Can it be summarized in two or three sentences, and then perhaps a couple of sentences on what the NFLPA does when it's not in the limelight during labor negotiations?

Early history

"The players originally began to unionize " I have no idea what "began to unionize" means. You go on to describe a gradual process towards collective bargaining over decades. Perhaps you need a more "Once upon a time" style beginning such as "From the early days of the NFL in the 1920s, there were labor grievances and disputes. " I'm sure you can find a ref. I would also restate the whole things about playing exhibition games for free as staying they only got paid if they made the regular season roster, and had to play exhibition games in order to make the roster (you can say that cut players received no pay for their efforts, for example. Just don't rail about the injustice of it all, if you understand my meaning. What they, in effect, wanted was a per diem.
"left the NFL to play for" joined
Were the players forgiven when the AAFC ended and Cleveland Baltimore and SF were allowed to join the NFL? Also, I would end this paragraph here and then discuss the 1950s events in the next paragraph

I recall a famous story about how when a Packer dared bring an agent to a negotiation with Lombardi, he excused himself for a moment and returned to inform them they now needed to do their negotiating with the Eagles (as I recall). If you can find and source it, it might be worth an inclusion for the sake of color. Your call, obviously.

"They were eventually supported by 11 of the 12 teams that were in the league at the time, and they announced the formation of the NFLPA in 1956." Well ... players on the teams anyway. You need to clear this up, Also, I dislike the way you've used "they", you are talking about people being supported, and so it reads oddly. Can you say supported the formation of the organization? Additionally, it would be interesting to know the attitude of the owners at that time.
"new association initially requested " I think you can say "new association's initial demands". That's a perfectly proper term in a labor context and carries no disrespect to the organization. I take it they were also asking recognition as the players' exclusive bargaining agent on labor matters? They did want to be recognized as a union from the start, I assume. You need to explain this. Also for "unable to perform" suggest "unable to play". Or perhaps omit the whole phrase and rely on "injured" to carry that implication.
You should mention the Seals were a baseball team.
" Don Shula of the Baltimore Colts," gently make it clear to the reader that he was then a player by mentioning his position.
You can't personalize Radovich by telling his story and then only refer to him winning his lawsuit by leaving the reader to discern it by referring to a successful lawsuit with his last name! You have to say something like "Their hand was strengthened when the Supreme Court ruled that the NFL had wrongfully (whatever) to Radovich by (whatever)." That kind thing. Find someplace to do a pipe to the article on the court decision. Also, I would omit the "For example" with which you introduce him. He is not an example, he is a central figure of this part of the story.
I would combine the first two subsections under the name "Formation and struggle for recognition"
Miller need not be given his first name the second time he is mentioned. Can Bell's quote be explained a bit? I think a reader sufficiently interested to get this far would want to know.
"Miller refused" This phrasing in this context implies that Miller was being unreasonable. Also "grievance committee" needs to say inline who says so. My POV meter is twitching at this passage.
"The players " Why now the players? Surely Miller was an instrument in this? The switch to the general when we start talking about something positive again makes me think there's a bit of favorability to the anti-Miller position. I should add that I know only what I've read here about the history of the NFLPA and really have no position.
"this was a misconception as the NFL could play the associations against each other in negotiations. " This reads very oddly, like the AFL, NFL, and NFLPA would all be part of the same negotiation, which was not the case. Sugguest you give this another look.
"In partial response to this misguided threat," First, "misguided" is a very strong term. I don't understand what threat. The AFL could hardly avoid being a factor in negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA. They could hardly ignore the elephant in the room. You have to make it clear what was done wrong and what the NFL was responding to.
It might be wise to mention the fate of the forfeited pension contributions, if any. I trust they were eventually restored?
"On January 14, 1964," This should probably be a new paragraph.
As Addison is unfamiliar to most today, I would mention his position.
The last sentence of the paragraph obscures the obvious. Simply state that with the merger, players could no longer use the leverage of being able to sign with the other league to get more money out of their existing team. That's what it was all about and why the leagues eventually had to merge once it became clear the AFL was not going away.
"weak constitution" Not really. What it was that as the NFLPA really had no leverage as they had no power to strike. You might want to relate it, if you can, to resentment over the changes that basically were being imposed on them as the leagues merged. They had lost their leverage of being able to change leagues and no doubt were pretty unhappy about it. You should tie this in with the changes that were going on. This sounds too much in isolation. Also, did the NFLPA play any role in the AFL-NFL War which preceded the merger, such as Davis's raid on the quarterbacks?
why are events being told backwards in chronology? In addition, as soon as you begin to mention Parrish's efforts, you should make clear that he proposed to be independent of the existing NFLPA organization.
O'Brien: If someone is not notable enough to be a blue link, and you are only going to mention him once, unless you are making a point by making him a redlink, it is probably unnecessary to mention him at all.
" and declared itself an unaffiliated union" The significance of this may be lost upon the reader. Make it clear how this was a major change from its prior role. It should also be made clearer that the two events, that is, the NFLPA becoming a union and Miller departing, accomplished an awful lot of what Parrish was seeking.
"Sources speculated that he quit" Who? The sources you have found, or a reporter's sources. Very unclear. You may want to attribute to someone's name, and also preface his name by a one-word job description like "writer" or "lawyer" so the reader gets the significance of what you are saying.

More later. Generally quite good but needs a little cleaning up before prime time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formation

The first sentence makes the rest of the paragraph anticlimactic. I would try to phrase this a little more dramatically, and then end with something like "Despite the union's success in reaching a CBA (an acronym you need somewhere in there), many players were dissatisfied because ..."
"the owners relented" How? It was a strike, not a lockout. POV meter twitching again.
"they were forced to accept the owners' terms" Were guns placed to their heads?
The minimum salaries and lack of recourse to arbitration are presented as unreasonable. I don't know if they are or are not. I am becoming increasingly concerned that there are POV issues in this article.
"As the merger of the AFL and NFL became official in 1970, the unions" multiple issues here. I would say "effective" rather than "official"; it's still imprecise because what was undecided is how to institute an integrated schedule that included the regular season, but at least it's commonly used. Clearly, though, with the AFL "ending" after 1969, there was no place for two unions.
"Jealousy between both associations and fear on the part of the AFL players strained the negotiation process." I would omit. It's clear from the following sentences that the NFLers (the majority, I would think) wanted a NFL guy (so to speak) the AFLers an AFL guy.
"The NFL owners continued, however, to treat the players lightly in negotiations," This is certainly POV, and I doubt you could find universal acceptance for this statement, especially from the NFL owners still active from then. I am going to leave it here for a while. I want you to consider whether or not there is a pro-player bias in this article. The Writer 2.0, drop me a note on my talk page when you think it's ready for me to look furhter. There is no point in my going through it when you may be inclined to make changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things, sorry to be so slow, am gearing up again.

Recognition and certification

"the concessions the players received were not as pronounced as they hoped, leaving many members frustrated." Perhaps "many players felt that the agreement did not get them as many benefits as they had hoped, leaving them dissatisfied."
"compromised by agreeing to" agreed to. Also, at the end of the sentence, I would conclude "; there was at yet no neutral arbitration".
I would inform the reader that the Colts were an NFL team which was moving to the AFC, predominately made up of former NFL teams. That kinda thing anyway. Accordingly, it was an adept compromise.
It might be wise to mention what issue was at stake in 1970. The owners are sounding unreasonable, be careful.
You mention the NLRB approval twice. I would remedy this by deleting the word "successfully" when you talk about the filing with the NLRB.
"option clause and the NFL revenue clause," Are we talking "reserve clause" here? Also, I would mention, when you talk about compensation, that the compensation in question can include players.
Why not start the paragraph by mentioning the filing of the free agency lawsuit? That way you stay in alphabetical order.
"individual contracts to protect players and guarantee their salaries." I have no idea what this means. Mackey should be italicized where the case is meant.
As Mackey was to achieve free agency, if it did not do so, I would not describe it as successful. Start with what Mackey called for without characterizing it, then go on and chronicle what the union did in response to it. Consign the legal citation to a footnote, but link to the article on the case, if there is one.
I would like to see the story of the 1982 strike more completely told. The story seems to pick up in the middle. Perhaps say a little more about how the strike came to be. Possibly incorporate the All Star Game stuff into the section, not have it separate.
It should also be made clear that the schedule and playoff changes were for that season only.
"significantly less than those of" Significantly lower than those in
"Say where RFK Stadium is on first mention.

Upshaw era

The introductory text needs to be referenced.
What were the players demanding? Again, a little more background is needed here. Also, I'd link to NYJ, it's been a long time
"replacement players as other strikebreakers." Why "other"?
"in place" Consider striking.
You should concisely mention the names of the courts for Doty and the appeals court. I would give the names fully and then shorter forms later.
"a deadline later ruled to be in violation of federal labor laws and backpay for the strike" backpay probably should be back pay, but please look at this phrase as it doesn't seem to be that clear.
" (so-called "Plan B") " You might want to make clear who called it this. As you never mention it again consider whether it is needed.

DeMaurice Smith era

" the issue that dominated discussion was the 2011 lockout." As he still serves, perhaps "has been"?
The list of issues seems a bit random.
I found the description of the 2011 lockout unsatisfying. Surely there is more of interest to say without overdoing it? Also can something more be said about what the terms of the settlement were?
I think you need more about what the union does between industrial actions.

NFLPA game. Is this really worth having for one sentence? Consider a See Also.

That's about it. Very good but needs a few tweaks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]