Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carl Zoll/archive2

Carl Zoll

Nominator(s): BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After narrowly missing out on promotion last month, I'm taking this back so that hopefully it can achieve FA status this time. Carl Zoll, the son of a stonecutter, was one of three brothers active in Green Bay, Wisconsin, sports, competing in wrestling and football. A heavyweight, he became one of the top wrestlers in the area and was undefeated in his first two years of competition, becoming the state champion. He contended for the World Light Heavyweight Championship in 1920 but was defeated, and after several losses in 1921, only competed periodically in subsequent years. Zoll was also active in football at the same time, being a member of the inaugural Green Bay Packers team in 1919. He appeared in exactly one NFL game for the Packers, a distinction that his two brothers also hold. He later worked for his family's stonecutting business until his death in 1974. Thanks are owed to Gonzo fan2007 and PCN02WPS, who both reviewed it twice (on the talk page and at the prior FA nom), as well as the five other editors who reviewed it at the last nom. Hopefully Zoll can become an FA this time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007

Support on prose, per my earlier reviews during GAN and the first FAC. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Hi BeanieFan11, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are all in public domain because of their age and/or lack of copyright notice. The links to the image sources are working. The images are relevant, placed in appropriate locations, and have captions and alt texts. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I can't see what changes have been made since the last FAC (apart from two edits by me) that address the issues raised there. Graham Beards (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A decent amount of rewording has been done since your last comment at that FAC. You also never made it clear what exactly I was to do, only saying that the article somehow needed to be entirely rewritten by a football FA expert, despite all four of the most prominent football FA writers reviewing it, some even copyediting it, and each agreeing it was in FA-shape. As I said before, I'm happy to address any issue you point out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant since the last FAC was archived. At least one reviewer said the prose needed a polish but no edits have been made. I'm sorry but I get the impression it has just been brought back to FAC hoping for better luck. Graham Beards (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer said the prose could use polish, but they also said their comment was "certainly not an oppose". I'm happy to address any issue you point out, but I don't see what I'm possibly supposed to do when I'm told by one lone "oppose" editor (compared to four who supported, and no other opposes) that the "whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer" when (i) each football FA writer reviewed and/or copyedited it and said it was good, and (ii) you haven't specified anything for me to do. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11, I certainly disagree with Graham Beards on their opinions on the article, but respect that they feel that way. I think their point lies more in two places: (1) WP:FIXLOOP, where they believe that the level of review is so significant that instead of providing 100 comments and days of back-and-forth, they would rather see another editor copyedit the article and improve the prose before reviewing it; (2) that since the last nomination closed, there haven't been any significant changes to the article and since David Fuchs archived the nomination as a failure, the expectation is that improvements need to be made to change that consensus. Now I of course am paraphrasing others, so they are definitely welcome to chime in to clarify. I obviously still disagree with the commentary and decision in the first nomination, but here we are. I would say that unless the two reviewers who were neutral on the first nom are willing to come back for another review and switch to support, it will be challenging to have this nom be successful with Graham Beards opposition (which was strongly relied upon for the archival of the first nom). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is so poor and I'm incapable of writing acceptable prose, I'd like to see at least something illustrating that. At the moment, every addressable issue that anyone has raised anywhere has been addressed. I had nothing to indicate what I possibly could have done to 'fix' the vague 'issues' brought up by Graham Beards in the past FAC before a renom, and still have absolutely nothing indicating what sort of copyedit needs to be done now. Saying that the article needs someone other than me who writes football FAs to give it a complete rewrite when every editor meeting that description has done either that or given it a decent review and supported is pretty ridiculous if you ask me (especially with how vastly different the article is compared to when he first reviewed it). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you BeanieFan11. I am sure there are actionable comments that could be made, but I view the prose as WP:FAC worthy at this point and any additional issues being relatively minor, stylistic choices. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say ""whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer"? I don't recall it, nor can I find the diff. Graham Beards (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs a copyedit by someone new to the article who can bring some objective distance to the prose. ... you [should] find an editor who is familiar with the sport...preferably one with and established FA track record, who is willing to help you rewrite the article to a FA standard. In its current state, it is not good enough – that seems to imply you think the article needs significant reworking and rewriting by someone else. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply the diff for this quote you attributed to me; "whole thing needs to be entirely redone by a different football FA writer"? If you can't, kindly apologise and retract the statement. Graham Beards (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, I have read the article again today and my view hasn't changed. Although certainly a GA, I don't think this candidate is of FA standard. Apart from issues with the rather stagnant prose, which I have mentioned before, there are sourcing problems: apart from a few exceptions, the whole article is sourced to press cuttings from a contemporary local newspaper. Graham Beards (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you even point out some of these issues with the prose? So far about five or six other experienced reviewers have looked and couldn't find anything wrong with it, and you haven't shown me anything either aside from saying it is bad prose. And is there a rule that local press clippings are unusable in FAs? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the first FAC "You should keep in mind that FAC is not meant to be WP:Peer review and reviewers are not expected to go through the article sentence by sentence." With regard to the press cuttings, I don't think they satisfy Criterion 1c, "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources." I will give you a couple of examples of below par prose. A new paragraph starts with "Zoll weighed 197 pounds (89 kg) by October 1918." This will leave the readers thinking "so what?". The word "defeated" occurs around fifteen times. And "His brother, Martin, sometimes competed in events featuring Zoll as well." Again, so what? This comes across as padding. Graham Beards (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The GB Press-Gazette is the highest-quality source for Green Bay sportspeople from the 1920s. An increase of nearly 20 pounds for a wrestler (a sport which is based on different weight classifications) is notable; that his brother was often one of the competitors at his events is relevant as well. The word "defeated" is common terminology in this sport, and it being used 15 times in a nearly 2000-word article does not strike me as overly excessive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say the weight was not notable and the same for his brother? My point is the way it is written, i.e. the prose. I am happy to yield on "defeated", but some variety would be good. Please note, I don't want to be drawn into a WP:FIXLOOP. Graham Beards (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the foundational quality of the sourcing here. Referring to a specific passage in the article at the last FAC, SchroCat stated that it read like it came from a "bad local newspaper". While I'm not going to disparage the quality of the Press-Gazette, we have a situation here in which the sourcing is almost entirely from a few regional newspapers. And while Green Bay has grown quite a bit, as of 1910 it was the eight-largest city in Wisconsin and smaller than Sheboygan, according to PDF pages 5 and 6 of this census document. So we're quite possibly into semi-regional or large local territory here at best for the 1910s newspaper coverage. And this coverage falls into two groups: 1) "come see this local wrestling production so that they'll still do shows here" like a 21st-century newspaper advertising a demolition derby or a high school basketball tournament and 2) "local boy makes good" stuff. I just don't see the available sourcing here as a foundation for a proper FAC. The pool of articles where GA-level sourcing exists is just much larger than the pool where FA-level sourcing exists. For example - I had 5 GAs promoted in 2024. Of these, CSS General Earl Van Dorn is a FA, CSS General Polk could maybe be a FA with further work, and I do not believe that Battle of Bayou Fourche, Edward W. Gantt, or Battle of Clark's Mill could ever be a FA without more research and publication into these topics, which is very unlikely for at least the latter two. I will let the FAC coords determine if this is actionable or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog Farm (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not arguing your main points, but I did want to note that the Green Bay Press-Gazette holds a somewhat unique place in the history of the NFL, and the reporting thereof. It was one of the earliest newspapers to accumulate All-Pro lists (see here for an example of 1925 All-Pros). The Press-Gazette employed George Whitney Calhoun, co-founder of the Packers who "amassed one of the most complete collections of NFL game results during his career" and reported on the Packers for 30 years. Andrew B. Turnbull, the first president of the Packers, was also the owner of the Press-Gazette. You can also read a "self-history" of the paper here. I say this all for two reasons: (1) the Press-Gazette has been a trusted, reliable source, especially for Packers content, for 100 years and (2) smaller, regional papers of the time obviously did not operate as newspapers today do, so we do need to read between the lines a bit between "promotional" material and true reporting. All that said, in my view 60+ newspaper sources over a long period of time feels like enough, even taking into account the differences between today and 100 years ago. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good argument for the Press-Gazette's Packers coverage, which I'm not disputing. What I'm concerned with is it's regional wrestling coverage, which is most of this article's sourcing. Just because Zoll had a brief association with the Packers doesn't mean that the quality of its Packers coverage can be retroactively applied to earlier wrestling coverage of Zoll, or to coverage of wrestling with no direct connection to Zoll's brief Packers stint. I think the subject is clearly notable, but I'm concerned that this is an example of the difference of RS coverage for notability and GA versus the higher sourcing quality expectations for FAs. Hog Farm _Talk 15:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns! Unfortunately back then there was a proclivity to avoid placing the author's name in articles. It's likely that Calhoun wrote most of, if not all of, the Press-Gazette's sports coverage in the early 1920s. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

As per my pre-FAC comments on the article talk page and at the first FAC, I will support on prose. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pokelego999

Heya! Gonna review this article, though just pre-facing that I've also got an active FAC nomination for Yeti (Doctor Who) up as well. It's not super long, so if you'd be willing to review that article as well, I'd greatly appreciate it, though I'm not forcing you by any means.

Onto the review itself, very few major issues. Prose reads pretty well. A couple nitpicks though:

- When it says tombstones, are these actual tombstones, or some other object? I'd hyperlink it if it is.

Appears to be actual tombstones, so linked.

-Is the quote really necessary? I feel the idea of Zoll's wrestling tendencies are easily conveyable through text.

I think it gives a good background and it was written by one of the most famous sportswriters ever, so I feel it has some relevance. Perhaps I should shorten it to only the part after "It is not recalled..."? Thoughts?

I'd just axe it. The quote doesn't really add much that can't be conveyed through text, and this is just objective information we don't really need a subjective read on. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about cutting it entirely is that we then have him begin by wrestling at carnivals, with no indication on how he did, to him immediately becoming one of the best wrestlers in the region. Given that we have some details on how his start in wrestling went, I think its worth noting. I tried trimming the quote a bit. Does that work, or do you still think it should be cut? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works enough for me. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-"and the Toronto Star Weekly highlighted his willingness to compete against any challenger and in any location." Not sure why this is needed since it doesn't really add much to understanding him in my opinion.

Cut.

-"He was the heaviest player for the Packers in their inaugural season, weighing 215 pounds (98 kg) despite standing at only 5 feet 9 inches (1.75 m)" As someone not in the football know, why is this a problem? 5'9 is a pretty respectable height, so it's not clear why that's a problem for playing the game.

5'9 is a bit small for a player at his position; also, the heaviest players are usually closer to, like, 6'4 than 5'9, but I changed it to "weighing 215 pounds while standing at 5 feet 9 inches".

Specify that this is a bit small for a player of his position, as otherwise the significance will not be inferred by non-football fans. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the Packers did seem to have some guards with similar measurements at the time (here), so I guess it wasn't too unusual. I'll keep it at what I changed it to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good at a glance. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-Is there any info on when he married his wife Pearl? Not a huge issue if there's nothing, but checking just in case.

It was in 1921. Should I add the date?

Not super pressing; I'll leave it up to your discretion on this one. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added it in. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-I have to concur with Hog Farm that I'm very concerned by the amount of local coverage. It doesn't really indicate much significance on a larger scale or in terms of long-lasting significance. This clearly passes GNG and is definitely a strong read for a GA, but I'm not sure if the sourcing is up to FA par. I'm not gonna oppose but I'll probably wait and see how your discussion with Hog Farm goes above before I make any final judgement calls.

I'm not sure what else there is to say about the newspapers. The Press-Gazette is arguably the best newspaper source for early Packers players and I'm not sure of any other Wisconsin papers of the time that gave better sports coverage... are there any parts of the article in particular where you think the source(s) are unreliable or inaccurate?

Not in particular, but an overreliance on one particular source, especially a local, seemingly specialty one, does not do much to indicate the subject had extreme influence outside of this. For GA standards it's more than fine but for FAC it leaves me a bit worried. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck with the FAC all the same! This reads very well and I couldn't find too many issues with the prose, so all in all I'd say this is a fantastic article no matter the outcome. I'm a big fan of your Packers articles and your dedication to the area, so thank you so much for all you do here. It's really genuinely so awesome. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Thanks for the review. I responded to your comments. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @BeanieFan11: I'm so sorry about the wait, I thought I'd already responded to this. Happy with the bulk of the fixes, responded to a few points above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Pokelego999: Responded. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Pokelego999: Do you think there's anything I could do to earn your support? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for two months now and has yet to reach a consensus for promotion. Unless that changes in the next few days, I'm afraid this is liable to be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harper J. Cole

I reiterate my support from last time. The information we have on this individual is fairly thin, but what there is has been laid out in an easily readable manner. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]