Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Patrick Omameh/1

Patrick Omameh

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

TonyTheTiger is citing the status of this article as a GA to justify submitting subpar GANs like Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1 and Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)/GA1. However, it's clearly not at GA status today. It was perhaps a defensible promotion back in 2013, before Omameh's football had progressed. But it's far short of the GAC in 2024. His professional career is inadequately summarised in choppy prose – tiny sections detail little more than the dates he signed for and left his various teams. – Teratix ₵ 02:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Although Proquest has 1500 articles with his name, I am not seeing anything really encyclopedic missing. Here are samples of the types of articles on Omameh:

  https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2018/09/04/new-york-giants-patrick-omameh-struggled-pass-protection-preseason/

  https://saintswire.usatoday.com/2020/12/29/saints-depth-chart-patrick-omameh-chiefs-practice-squad/

  https://www.raiders.com/news/las-vegas-raiders-sign-patrick-omameh-nfl-2021-

  WP:WAWARD) 09:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Most articles that seem interesting are rehashing his WP Bio:

  https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2018/03/15/new-york-giants-sign-patrick-omameh-5-things-now/-

  WP:WAWARD) 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Coverage of him drops off after 2019.-
  WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment at the moment, the article violates

GA criterion 3a) as it stands. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Teratix do you feel that the issues are resolved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the basic problems with paragraph structure and comprehensiveness remain unfixed. The article really speaks for itself on this account. – Teratix ₵ 05:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the issue was deficient content. I'll revisit this.-

WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Structure has been fixed. As noted above, there is not any significant content missing.-

WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

All you did was mash the tiny one-line sections into one big chunk. That doesn't actually fix anything. I mean, come on, you look at a section like:

Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, 2020. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He was waived on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Omameh was claimed off waivers by the New Orleans Saints. He was waived on December 24, 2020.

You honestly think "structure has been fixed"? You honestly think "there is not any significant content missing"? You honestly think that's a well-written summary of Omameh's career that adequately addresses its main aspects? – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Here are five substantive sources on Omameh that are completely unused in the article.[1]^[2][3][4][5] They were all on the first page of a basic Newsbank search.

Note these are intended as representative examples to demonstrate how much this article is missing, not to be exhaustive. You could include all five and that wouldn't fix the problem. So yes, you are overlooking significant secondary sources.

But I shouldn't even have to pick these out. It should be blindingly obvious, when two full years of Omameh's career is mechanically summarised as:

Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, 2020. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He was waived on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Omameh was claimed off waivers by the New Orleans Saints. He was waived on December 24, 2020.

...that the article is evidently missing coverage. – Teratix ₵ 06:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that at 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC), I pinged

WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

There isn't a ton that could be added about those portions of his career, although Tony, you probably could add things in between like, e.g. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He appeared in six games for the team before being waived on December 14, 2020. (See PFR). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph is also very poorly written (even relative to the rest of the article) and fails

GA criterion 1a). I really don't know why constantly repeating the years is necessary, nor why three sentences with an average length of nine words are necessary to describe a ten-day period. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I really don't know why constantly repeating the years is necessary, nor why three sentences with an average length of nine words are necessary to describe a ten-day period. – while the years may not be necessary, the second part you mentioned is definitely necessary as it explains important details / transactions of his career (something all modern football player articles have), although it could be combined into less sentences. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tail end of the careers of pedestrian players is often a lot of choppy content like you see here. It is rare that anyone is ever asked to pay such close attention to the content of this portion of the biography for as mediocre of a player. It seems quite unnatural to me. There are many much more worthwhile expenditures of my editorial time. I am not above delving into the biographies of mediocre players. However, I consider it far more worthwhile to flesh out a redlink into a decent biographical picture than it is to spend time detailing precisely how mediocre a player is who already has a biography that gives a decent picture of that mediocrity.-

WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure, it's perfectly alright to say "I don't care enough about these players to justify spending my time on fixing their articles. I'm going to spend my time on other things instead."

But taking this stance means accepting the possibility that these players' articles will degrade over time as their careers progress, that other editors will notice this and put the articles up for reassessment, and thus that if not enough is done, they will lose their GA status.

Ultimately, you can't have your cake and eat it too. There's no GAC exception saying "articles must be well-written and adequately address the main aspects, except if they're on mediocre NFL players". – Teratix ₵ 07:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teratix, you no doubt have shown that content is missing. The question is what is considered encyclopedic. I don't know what the football term is, but baseball statasticians (I have a Masters Degree in Statisitcs, BTW) use a term called replacement player. It is a generic term that star players are compared against in a statistic known as

WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Teratix, I'm not seeing precisely what more is needed here? IMO, "adequately addresses the main aspects" does not mean "include every detail known to man" – the article doesn't look that bad to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Tony has expanded the article a bit having done some Newsbank searches of his own. This is good! For instance, the section on his 2016 season at the Jaguars:

Omameh signed with the Jacksonville Jaguars on June 2, 2016. Despite not looking that good to coach Doug Marrone in practices, Omameh made the roster over Mackenzy Bernadeau and others. When left guard Luke Joeckel had season-ending surgery in October, Omameh took his place. He was placed on injured reserve on November 21 after sustaining a left foot injury in Week 11 against the Detroit Lions. According to Ryan O'Halloran of The Florida Times-Union, despite his mediocre pass protection performance, in Omameh's six starts (453 snaps) at left guard, he performed superior to the other 4 people who started in 2016 at that position for the team.

now at least references some actual analysis of Omameh's performance. This is the standard I'm thinking of when considering whether a main aspect has at least been "adequately" addressed. Now if we can get the rest of the sections on his NFL career to at least this standard, the article would be well on the way to a retention. – Teratix ₵ 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding Newsbank, the
  WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Sorry, you don't understand what those essays mean. "Run-of-the-mill" is a concept that relates to notability – it's about whether a particular subject is different enough from the ordinary to deserve an article in the first place, not about what is covered within that article. "Routine" is another concept that relates to notability, not article content – it's about whether something like a wedding announcement, a criminal charge or an everyday sports match deserves its own article.

  Similarly, you don't understand what WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOTEVERYTHING means. "Indiscriminate" is a concept that relates to things like articles that log every single software update for a particular app. An indiscriminate article on Omameh would be something like analysing every NFL match he ever appeared in. When I ask, e.g. that the article use the many secondary sources available to say a little more about his stint with the Saints than Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, that's not "INDISCRIMINATE".

  I've lost my patience here. I've been very clear about the article's obvious failures to adequately cover Omameh's NFL career and the ample secondary sources that haven't been incorporated, even to the point where I had to go out and explicitly pick out five examples for Tony. This GAR has been open for over a month now and there has been every opportunity for interested editors to get it back to a decent standard.

  Barring some substantive improvement, the article should be delisted for failing GAC (3a), adequately addressing main aspects. – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am done. Thanks for your time. Of course a GAR is not an individual effort so others may want to take up the slack.-
  WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Have the relevant Wikiprojects been notified of this GAR?-
    WP:WAWARD) 13:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The GAR automatically shows up in WikiProjects' article alerts and you notified WikiProject NFL yourself (not exactly in a neutral fashion, I might add). – Teratix ₵ 15:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]