Wikipedia:Peer review/List of black NFL quarterbacks/archive1

List of black quarterbacks[edit]

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 I would like to eventually submit it for consideration as a Featured List, but it is the first list I have made, and would appreciate any/all feedback on the entire article.

Thanks, Leviv ich 03:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by gnu57[edit]

Here are a few minor quibbles—please feel free to disregard. More to follow.

Lead

"Quarterbacks run the show."
Do you really need this unmoored quote? It isn't attributed in-text to anyone, and I don't think you'd lose much by paraphrasing instead.
Struck the sentence entirely. After re-reading it, I think the preceding sentence, "The quarterback is the leader of a team's offense, directing other players on the field" (cited to the same source), says the same thing, so the quote-sentence is redundant. Do you agree, or do you think more should be said on this point? Leviv ich 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, black players have been excluded from playing quarterback because of a perceived lack of intelligence, dependability, composure, character, charisma, or the belief that white players would not follow their leadership.
I find it's helpful to think of category trees when reading this sort of sentence: as you're going along, all the list items hang off of "a perceived lack of", until you unexpectedly hit "the belief". I suggest that you add another "or" between character and charisma, to make it clear that you're done with that sub-list before going on to the next higher-level item. Here's a terrible diagram of what I mean:

excluded because of:
 →a perceived lack of:
   →intelligence
   →dependability
   →composure
   →character
   →or charisma
 →or the belief that white players...

Done. The sentence diagram tree isn't terrible–it's very helpful! I rearranged it to put the "belief" clause first (and added "in the NFL"): "Historically, black players have been excluded from playing quarterback in the NFL because of the belief that white players would not follow their leadership, or the perception that black quarterbacks lack intelligence, dependability, composure, character, or charisma." More readable? Am I trying to fit too much into one sentence? Leviv ich 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, the quarterback position was among the last to be desegregated.
Perhaps the de facto/de jure distinction would be useful here?
Done. Changed to "Although a ban on black players in the NFL ended in 1946, the quarterback position was among the last to be de facto desegregated." (I shouldn't have said "in the United States", that's actually not accurate, it's "in the NFL".) The 1946 clause is cited to Howard, the "last to be desegregated" is cited to Freedman (who doesn't discuss the '46 ban because his history doesn't go back that far). Do you think that's SYNTH? Leviv ich 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Black quarterbacks and other quarterbacks of color "come in all shapes, sizes and styles of play".
I think that quoting this verbatim is unnecessary.
Done. Rephrased to paraphrase and combine with the next sentence: "Although black quarterbacks and other quarterbacks of color vary in physical size and playing style, racial stereotyping persists." (Also, I had the wrong source cited for the first part, so I fixed that.) Leviv ich 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Black quarterbacks are twice as likely to be "benched", or removed from play, than white quarterbacks, even when accounting for injury, age, experience, and other factors.
This to me gives the misleading impression that the raw numbers are higher, but other factors account for some of that difference—which, as far as I can tell, the source doesn't go into.
Done. Changed it to: "A 2015 study found that even when controlling for various factors, black quarterbacks are twice as likely to be "benched", or removed from play, than white quarterbacks." Better? Should "even when controlling for various factors" be removed? Leviv ich 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sports broadcasters are more likely to attribute a black quarterback's success to superior athletic skill and a white quarterback's success to their intellect.
The source for this sentence is a sports journalism site which attributes and links to a journal article:
- Billings, Andrew C. (2004). "Depicting the Quarterback in Black and White: A Content Analysis of College and Professional Football Broadcast Commentary". Howard Journal of Communications. 15 (4): 201–210. doi:10.1080/10646170490521158.
Why not use the journal article directly?

I think also that WP:gender-neutral language § Precision and clarity applies here: since the NFL is a men's league, the singular male pronoun "his" is preferable to "their".
Done. Both fixed: their->his and cite changed to the journal article. I also combined this sentence and the next sentence into one sentence citing both journal articles, preceded by, "Other studies have found..." Leviv ich 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When describing black quarterbacks, the media is more likely to emphasize physical gifts and lack of mental ability, whereas white quarterbacks are described as "less physically gifted, but more mentally prepared for the game and less likely to make mental errors."
I suggest recasting the sentence and possibly paraphrasing the quote, since it isn't clear right now that it comes from Mercurio and Filak, the researchers, rather than from the media.
Done. This sentence is now combined with the previous sentence, per above. Leviv ich 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As recently as 2018, a school superintendent in Texas received national attention when, following a loss by a team led by a black quarterback, he publicly wrote, "When you need precision decision making you can’t count on a black quarterback.
Please see WP:DATED.
Done. ("In 2018, ...") Leviv ich 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, black quarterbacks are "over-indexed as successful", with nearly every professional and college championship game featuring a black quarterback in recent years.
The source says that they "have over-indexed on successful"; either way, I have no idea what it means—apparently something to do with stock indices?
Struck the sentence entirely. The point (I think) is that championship games feature two starting quarterbacks, one for each team. So if 1 out of 4 quarterbacks are black, you would expect half of the championship games to have no black quarterbacks. But, most of them do have a black quarterback, thus they're "over-indexed as successful". But this doesn't actually pan out for the NFL, except for a period 2013–2016 (which is the period the source specifies). It's much more pronounced at the college level–most NCAA championship games feature a black quarterback–but then, at the college level, it's not true that only 1 out of 4 QBs are black (that's an NFL statistic). This is an article (now) about black QBs in the NFL, so I don't see the college statistic as being relevant, and the Super Bowl doesn't hold up (most Super Bowls, even in the 21st century, do not feature a black QB, as our list here demonstrates.) So, I think it's better to remove the sentence entirely, but let me know if you disagree and think it should be re-written instead. I was looking for something positive to end the lead on. Alas. Leviv ich 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added to the end of the lead: "The following year, a physically smaller-than-average black quarterback became the highest-paid player in the NFL." Thoughts? Leviv ich 03:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, gnu 57 08:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, gnu!! Your suggestions were great improvements. I've implemented all of them per my inline responses above. If you don't mind taking a look, I have some questions for you on some of them, mostly the same question: does the revision address the concern and is it an improvement? Thanks again for your time and for being so quick to review, I really appreciate it! Leviv ich 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @gnu57: Thanks again for your feedback. Should I close this? Do you think it has a chance at FL? – Levivich 04:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]