Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jayden Daniels/archive1

Drive-by comment

The awards and records section should be deleted, and all the relevant material be comprehensively merged into the article text. As an example, the fact that he won the Heisman and the College football player of the year are already mentioned in the article text. If the fact he won the Walter Camp Award, the Manning Award, etc aren't important/notable enough to be mentioned in the body of the article, than why are they notable enough for a standalone section? And if they are in the body of the article, why do they need to be duplicated (or in the case of infobox awards, mentioned a third time)? As an example, you could add a few sentences that says "Daniels set multiple rookie season records for a quarterback, including the most wins, most rushing yards in a season, highest completion percentage, and the most points per game. He was named the rookie of the week a record 11 times during the regular season. In the postseason, he also set rookie records for passing yards, touchdowns and rushing yards by a quarterback." In those three sentences, you pretty much cover 10 bullet points in an encyclopedia manner. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, the bolding of his name and his mothers name in the Personal life section isn't supported by writing guidelines/policy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Removed boldface on parents' names. Left guide (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing the records section. People don't want to read through blocks of text to see what records he's had. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTSTATS is a key policy consideration here:

Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.

Left guide (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not statistics. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Are these sections usually removed for athlete FAs? Magic Johnson has a similar section that apparently nobody has a problem with, including a dedicated list that follows much of the same format. I can convert them all to prose if needed, but most readers tend to skim articles and I did that to avoid cluttering up paragraphs with every record achieved or set (which is quite a bit). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Magic Johnson was affirmed as FA in 2009, when community standards may have been lower/more lax. Also consider that all kinds of stuff may have crept into the article since then from crowd-sourced editors. If any comparison is to made, it should be based on the FA-approved version. If there's doubts about the quality of that article's current condition, consider improving it and/or nominating it for FA re-assessment separately. Left guide (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

While I personally think the section serves a purpose akin to statistic tables, I'll write them all in the article body later as it seems to be contentious. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The section is now incorporated into prose, with some additional syntax changes to fit it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the embedded list of awards was fine, and meets MOS:EMBED:

Embedded lists are lists used within articles that supplement the article's prose content.

Leaving details of lesser awards to comprehensive lists make for better flowing text. Instead, the change leaves a monotonous laundry list of awards, when the previous text was more effective at conveying the key achievements:

−

His performance earned him the 2023 Heisman Trophy among other college football player of the year awards, making him the third LSU player to win the Heisman behind Billy Cannon in 1959 and Joe Burrow in 2019.

+

His performance earned him the 2023 Heisman Trophy award, making him the third LSU player to win it behind Billy Cannon in 1959 and Joe Burrow in 2019. Other awards and honors won for the season include the Walter Camp Award, Associated Press and The Sporting News College Football Player of the Year awards, Davey O'Brien Award, Manning Award, Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award, the SEC Offensive Player and Male Athlete of the Year awards, and the Best College Athlete, Men's Sports award at the 2024 ESPYs.

One can argue that a few more awards besides the Heisman should be included in prose, but the conference and ESPY awards are minor for Daniels, but are notable enough, with their own links, for an embedded list. We do the same thing with stats tables, alleviating the need to rattle off the same basic stats for every season in prose. —Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Major awards are already called out in the infobox. Might this be a case where MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS applies?

There will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information may be placed in the infobox, but is difficult to integrate into the body text.

Left guide (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

They can co-exist. The infobox is meant to be a summary: The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). The body can have a comprehensive list. —Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Another NFL bio, Dan Fouts, was promoted to FA in 2025, and its approved version had an embedded honors list —Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored the section as it existed upon promotion for Fouts. More of the major awards (Walter Camp, etc) were kept in prose, which seemed to be the largest issue with the original comment. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Note, the examples given are for professional athletes who have played long, distinguished careers. Daniels has played one season, and his list of accomplishments is longer than Fouts. Most of his college accomplishments, especially school-specific records, aren't notable and are only present due to WP:RECENTISM. Another example, "Offensive Rookie of the Month (September 2024)" and "NFC Offensive Player of the Week (2024: Week 3)" are not even awards. I'd be fine with standard, notable recognitions, but recognition that requires something like four qualifiers (Conference, Off/Def, Year, Week) are not notable for a standalone list in an article and are clearly easier to just mention in the body of the text. "Daniels did XY&Z, earning Offensive Rookie of the Month for September". "Most touchdown passes in the fourth quarter or overtime in a rookie season: 12" is not a real record. Its a sports almanac type achievement. These things should be removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. A simple, objective, and fair cutoff is to only include those that can be cited to independent secondary sources. As stated before, this also mitigates the promo concerns. Left guide (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, some of this is supported by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Brett Favre and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL records held by Jerry Rice (2nd nomination), where the strong consensus was that "lists of ancillary statistics, record, and awards" generally aren't notable for NFL players. We also need to consider lasting coverage, and whether discussion of some of these specialized recognitions are really going to be reported on in 10 years. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

So is there any issue with the current amount of achievements in prose, or is it simply the dedicated section that promotes adding the more minor ones? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The minor "achievements" imho are often easily added to the prose. As you said, maybe listing 7 straight awards isn't great, but weekly recognitions or school records could very easily be added to the prose. As you reduce this dedicated section down, then it becomes more apparent that it likely isn't warranted. Take a look at Brett Favre, as admittedly not amazing example. But one of the most accomplished QBs in NFL history, his achievements section has nothing about college, and most of it is actually been converted to prose. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you against such a section existing at all? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm against a list-based section of achievements, especially for an NFL player who has only played one season. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Not go to off-topic, but would converting the "Honors and awards" section on Farve's article to prose be an ideal solution? Having similar information scattered throughout the article (most readers skim) is my only gripe with omitting them. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Dissident93 I am not opposed to short lists of accomplishments. But note, Favre's list is all massively notable accomplishments, such as MVPs, All-Time Teams, Hall of Fames, etc. Favre's article is an absolute mess, so not saying its a good example. Just trying to show the dichotomy here of what is causing me consternation. An article I wrote, Jordan Love, I think is the example of what I am conveying. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The AfDs were for standalone lists, when smaller ones can instead be incorporated into bios as embedded lists. Yes, do leave out contrived "ESPN Stats" like "Highest passer rating with 4+ touchdown passes and 250+ passing yards by half-time of an NFL game". But college honors like SEC Offensive Player of the Year get mentioned months after the award is issued, and mention seems WP:DUE. —Bagumba (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

As I have said, removing the sports almanac records, the school-specific records, etc makes the list really small, thus questioning whether it is warranted at this time. I will note that the consensus was that these types of lists, whether standalone or not, encourage additions of every random thing and make updating extremely difficult. would note that its unlikely weekly-recognitions are ever notable, long-term. Even monthly recognitions are questionable. That's why I say some of these should just be removed, some should be added to the prose, and then what is left, depending on size, could remain as a list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that there should be selection criteria for which awards bear mentioning. I just think awards and accolades are often important enough to repeat in a separate section, like with actors, e.g. Vivien Leigh § Credits and accolades —Bagumba (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly all stats are contrived to some degree since they're all social constructs, and there's no objective black-and-white definition of what's a "record", let alone what's "significant". A team or league can go through a past game/season/career log and create any "record" they want to promote a player. That's why I'm a big advocate of only calling out those cited to independent secondary sources, because virtually any other cutoff is going to be arbitrary. As an example, a recent version included these "records" sourced only to the LSU website:

• LSU career quarterback rushing yards: 2,019
• LSU single-season total yards: 4,946 (2023)
• LSU single-season quarterback rushing yards: 1,134 (2023)
• LSU single-season quarterback rushing touchdowns: 11 (2022)

If nobody (in the world of reliable sources) outside of LSU cares about these, why should Wikipedia? Left guide (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd require that secondary sourcing exists (though in a basketball FAC many years ago, nobody else seemed to care that a bio was full of database stats trivia). —Bagumba (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The inclusion of records only cited to primary non-independent sources is often argued only on the basis of subjective importance and editors' personal feelings/opinions which is counter to WP:WEIGHT policy clause:

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Left guide (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I agree completely that primary-sourced awards/honors/records implies they weren't noteworthy enough to warrant being mentioned by secondary sources. However, I still believe a dedicated section for the ones that remain serves a purpose per MOS:EMBED. Most readers skim articles and I don't see how it's any different than an infobox, unless the argument is the information then gets repeated thrice and that's too much. The sections exist in some other FAs, including at the time of promotion, so it seems more like personal style than a clear guideline/policy. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This will hit the three-week mark tomorrow and doesn't have a single commentary or support for promotion. If there isn't significant progress over the next few days, I'm afraid this is at the risk of archival. FrB.TG (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll make a post on WT:NFL. I didn't prior because I wanted non-NFL editors to review the page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

More than four weeks in and no supports. This has very much stalled, so I afraid that I will be archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

I am not an NFL editor but I do have a good bit of college football experience - comments to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• "considered a dual-threat player for the position" → "considered a dual-threat player" since the link indicates that "dual-threat" applies to QBs only
• "winning the 2023 Heisman Trophy" → present tense sounds odd to me here, I would recommend making this a new sentence starting "He won the..."
• "The season also saw him" → this reads awkwardly to me - I would reword this last sentence (and perhaps give a touch more context as to why this is important)

Early life

• "his freshman year" → recommend link to Freshman and removing link from later in this paragraph
• "Daniels, initially needing a medical note to play due" → as above, present tense sounds odd to me here - recommend "Daniels initially needed ... to play since he was considered undersized ... " and then start the next sentence "He started on Cajon's ... and led them to ... " or something similar.
• "his right throwing hand" → implies he had two throwing hands
• "as a senior in 2018" → move to end of sentence
• "He was named the men's recipient" → "He was the men's recipient" for brevity
• "passed for a game-winning touchdown" → "threw the..."

College career

• I think you can remove the link to "freshman" since it's already covered in "Early life"
• "Daniels earned Pac-12 offensive player" → recommend specifying "Pac-12 Conference" on first mention
• "81–yard" → I believe a hyphen is correct here, "81-yard"
• I think there is too much detail in the caption in this section since all of it is given in the text anyway. I'd go with "Daniels (center, No. 5) playing for Arizona State against Oregon in 2019" or something like that
• I don't think "ESPN" needs italics here
• "and the team to an appearance" → I would go for "and led the team", I don't think it's too repetitive
• "his mother Regina" → "Daniels' mother Regina" since Daniels is not mentioned in that sentence
• Are there any 2022 regular-season details worth mentioning? The LSU section skips from "he won the starting job in camp" to "they played in the SEC championship"
• "He returned for the 2023 Citrus Bowl" → would recommend piping the link to display only "Citrus Bowl" since "2023" will throw off non-CFB-oriented readers
• "catching a touchdown pass thrown" → change to past tense
• "and voted the team's most" → and was voted
• "becoming the first player" → ditto with tense
• "For the season, Daniels threw for 40 touchdowns and rushed for 10, led the NCAA with nearly 5,000 total yards, and set the FBS single-season passer rating record." → uncited
• "the 2023 Heisman Trophy award"

Professional career

• "quarterbacks (QB) taken" → abbreviation seems very out of place here
• remove link to "offseason" as it's already linked
• "with his first win occurring" → "with" sounds odd to me here, ditto present tense issue
• "Daniels finished the regular season setting Commanders" → present tense, perhaps "having set"?
• "with five of them occurring in the final" → recommend semicolon and reword, rather than just "with... being..."
• "with Daniels voted to the" → reword to avoid "with"
• "with him garnering some votes for the" → recommend reword here too

Player profile

No notes.

Personal life

• "and pursued a Master of Liberal Arts degree at LSU" → did he graduate from LSU?

That's all from me, most of my issues are with wording and quality of the writing. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• All comments have been addressed, hopefully they suffice. I added his 2022 overtime run (and 2PC) to win against Alabama, but there could probably be more included without going too much detail if needed. And as far as I'm aware, he did not graduate from LSU (wasn't listed in any commencement booklet) and only has a degree from Arizona State. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think it would be wise to include details on his college seasons since "comprehensiveness" is an FA criteria - skipping over noteworthy stuff that happened during his LSU seasons seems to fall short of this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I could add something he did from pretty much any game, but at what point would prose become nothing more than career gamelogs? Having clear notability cutoff guidelines would help greatly here, such as having to score three touchdowns or gain 400 total yards. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  We shouldn't implement arbitrary cutoffs based on yards and touchdowns; that's not how Wikipedia is meant to operate. We should instead remain focused on the WP:WEIGHT of coverage in sources. Left guide (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm aware, but some player articles just feature game by game updates akin to WP:PROSELINE. Articles that are mainly about Daniels are easy to include, but what about ones where he passed for four touchdowns but was only mentioned once? I've always leaned towards excluding examples like that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  EDIT: should all of his Player of the Week honors be added to prose? Not so much as to give weight to the award itself, but rather his performance for the games are clearly noteworthy in some way. I'll try to find independent coverage to avoid WP:PROMO if possible. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  Not necessary, primary sources are allowed for uncontroversial facts. This article doesn't violate any of the five points at WP:PROMO. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  FAs are stricter on their inclusion, which is understandable. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's not necessarily true. The Fouts FA linked in this discussion has primary sources. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Second read-through

• "team's coaches resigned or had been fired" → "resigned or were fired"
• "He would lead the Tigers" → "He led the Tigers"
• "behind Billy Cannon in 1959" → "after" makes much more sense to me here
• "Additional honors won for the season include the" → "That season, he also won the" would be a much less wordy way to say the same thing
• "end of a 46-yard rush in the first quarter" → "quarter" is linked here - this should be moved to its first mention in the college section
• "he was later ruled out the rest of the game" → "ruled out for the rest of the game", I presume
• "throwing a 52-yard" → switch present tense to past
• "completion percentage (69%)" → completion percentage is given without the percent symbol in the college section but with the symbol here; doesn't matter which, but should be consistent (probably just add it in the college section since there are three instances in the pro section, all of which have the symbol present
• "their first postseason win since 2005 in road victories" → win (singular) clashes with victories (plural)
• "with him named the" → wording very awkward here. Recommend either a total rewrite or splitting the sentence right before this

Everything that caught my eye from my second read-through. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Addressed. I'll look to add to his 2022 section (the Ole Miss game is a good addition) if that's your remaining concern. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Final comments

@Gonzo fan2007, Left guide, HAL333, WikiOriginal-9, Bagumba, and PCN02WPS: Most major awards/achievements and missing noteworthy game performances (judged mostly by a player of the week award) are now included as prose, while previous claims cited by primary sources have either been replaced with secondary sourcing or removed if considered WP:PROMO if none could be found. The majority of comments and suggestions have been addressed, and I'd like to consolidate any remaining ones here as the above sections have gotten hard to navigate. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• If you are going to have a "Pre-draft measurables" table, there needs to be some context around it. Again, take a look at Jordan Love and the possibility of just adding a section about the draft. Note, I am not convinced that the table is even needed, as the fact that his hands were almost 9.5 inches in span really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I would rather read a section about how scouts viewed him leading up to the draft, with commentary on how his measurables compared to other QBs (i.e. just knowing his height and weight doesn't mean much, but having commentary say that Daniels was small for a QB would be more helpful). The table by itself is just shortchanging the reader. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  I've argued against such a table existing myself, especially if a player was just measured and did not perform in any actual drills, but I felt as if it was the WP:SILENTCONSENSUS as drive-by editors continued to add it back and others didn't seem to back me up. How Daniels was viewed leading up to the draft is pretty much reflected in his playing profile in that section, but there could be some more added regarding his slender physique lending more than a few scouts/draft analysts to question if he could last in the NFL if that's what you mean. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

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