Talk:History of the Cleveland Browns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHistory of the Cleveland Browns has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 19, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Origin of team name[edit]

This article states the Browns were not named after Paul Brown, but rather the boxer Joe Louis, going further to state that the idea of the team being named after Paul Brown has just been a long rumor or myth.

I can't find any source that backs this statement. Joe Louis had no ties to Cleveland (he worked in rival city Detroit when he was young). The Joe Louis Wikipedia article makes absolutely no mention of any connection either.

Here's how the story is typically presented: "In 1945, Arthur McBride brought the All-America Football Conference (AAFC) team to Cleveland. He ran a newspaper contest to name the team and offered the winner a $1,000 war bond. Many entries suggested the name "Browns" after Head Coach Paul Brown, but Coach Brown felt it wasn't "proper" to name the team after himself. Instead, the winning suggestion was the Panthers. However, there was a semi-pro team called the Cleveland Panthers in the '20s, and the owner still had the rights to the name. So, Coach Brown reluctantly agreed to name the team the Browns."

Even the Pro Football Hall of Fame makes no mention of a connection to Joe Louis. This article backs up its statement of a connection merely through one single reference of a book written based on one man's research rather than the horse's mouth which is the NFL. Here's the link to the NFL's team nickname histories: NFL Team Nicknames --Heavy (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AAFC "Merger" with the NFL[edit]

The AAFC was disbanded with three franchises then joining the NFL. It was *NOT* a merger. The NFL fails to recognize records from the AAFC because of this fact. The AFL merged with the NFL and the NFL today recognizes AFL records.--68.73.75.198 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move and expansion[edit]

As a reminder, it is irrelevant what editors think about the move to Baltimore and whether or not the current Baltimore Ravens are the original Cleveland Browns. Legally the current Cleveland Browns are considered by the NFL to be the franchise (this whole point has been discussed back and forth on the Cleveland Browns talk page) founded in 1946. Please refrain from making unsourced commentary, which is mostly what I removed in my most recent edit. Wikipedia is for sourced and verifiable facts, not speculation or opinion from editors. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed upgrade[edit]

I'm proposing to upgrade this article, following the general example set by the History of the New York Jets page, which is rated FA. Shortly, and unless there is any objection, I'm going to begin integrating historical material from the main Cleveland Browns page with this one, with a view to eventually shortening the history on the team page and making this the main repository for Browns history. This article hasn't been updated in a while, and presently appears to be a listing of seasons and the events therein; efforts will be made to preserve what's here as much as possible, whenever that information is relevant and useful.--Batard0 (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a fantastic idea! --JonRidinger (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having beefed up the article substantially, I'm nominating it for good article status. Any help much appreciated.--Batard0 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the Cleveland Browns/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 18:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article; given the length of it, the full review will be done over the course of a week or two. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I'm ready to respond to any and all concerns, and will be as patient as you need me to be. I'll give it a go-over, too, since it's been some time since the nomination and a couple poorly sourced paragraphs seem to have been added since. --Batard0 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead looks good, unfortunately that's s far as I've gotten so far. Free time was nonexistent this past week. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I know it's long. I can sit tight for as long as you need. --Batard0 (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the first batch of comments:

  • Link Miami Seahawks in AAFC
  • "and not even in a league" i think it can just say "and not in a league.."

AAFC now done. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Success section:

  • " And this time Cleveland dominated on both sides of the ball, intercepting Bobby Layne six times while Graham threw three touchdowns and ran for three more" I'd prefer not to use And to start a sentence, feels off.
  • " won their second NFL crown 56–10." I'd just say NFL championship, though this one isn't a big deal.
    • Substituted "championship", which is definitely better. --Batard0 (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To ask, would you want another reviewer? this is going slower than I planned and I don't want to feel like I'm holding this up since I'm out of free time on my end. Wizardman 03:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly fine to go through this as slowly as you like, but if you'd rather get someone else to do it, that's fine with me too. I can be patient; it's really not a problem. --Batard0 (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments up, thru 1964:

  • "against the New York Giants – a game the Browns needed to win" could be a comma instead of a dash.
  • "in the NFL Championship game in frozen Green Bay against the Packers. " frozen could be rm'd, to me it feels like the language in some points is getting a bit too flowery.
    • Agreed. It needs to be more matter-of-fact in places. Definitely let me know if you see any other such instances. Changed this and also changed "battled it out" to "played". --Batard0 (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in frozen Green Bay against the Packers. The teams battled it out on a slippery, mucky Lambeau Field on January 2, 1966" The two sentences feel like they would be better combined.
  • "While score was close" the score. Wizardman 04:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next section:

  • The Jim Brown Hollywood stuff could be tightened to one paragraph, as some of the stuff feels more appropriate for his article rather than this one.
    • Agreed. Tightened to one graf, and extra material moved to Brown's page. --Batard0 (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's only one subsection in the post-64 section, so that can be removed since it isn't needed.

Up to 74 now, finally making some progress on my end. Wizardman 17:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sipe section:

  • "An aging Leroy Kelly, Jim Brown's surprisingly successful replacement in the backfield, " prose a bit too much here, extra adjectives can be cut.
    • Definitely. I got rid of the whole subclause "Jim Brown's surprisingly successful replacement in the backfield" because it seems to me it doesn't add much. I could add back "Jim Brown's replacement in the backfield" if you think it's a useful reminder for readers at that point in the article. --Batard0 (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Mike Pruitt.

Up to 84 done. Wizardman 04:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put some time aside Thursday night to sweep through the rest of this article. Until then I'd like to at least see the above finished. Wizardman 05:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem. I'll wrap up the outstanding stuff tonight. The Brown stuff can easily be consolidated, and I'll move some to his bio. --Batard0 (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are addressed. Also thanks for the excellent Jim Brown suggestion. Let me know if you come across other areas where it could be condensed or feels too long -- I think the article generally is too big, although the FA-class History of the New York Jets is of similar length. --Batard0 (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the review for the rest of the article:

  • "Jim Shofner was named as his replacement, at least on an interim basis, and the team finished 3–13." can be shortened to just say Shofner was named interim head coach.
  • "The Browns used it on quarterback Tim Couch, and took receiver Kevin Johnson and linebacker Rahim Abdullah in the second round" not sure if the second rounders are needed, and Couch can be combined with the previous sentence.
    • Added to previous sentence and deleted the second-rounders. --Batard0 (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few spots in the drive and fumble sections where things are overworded a bit, things in general that can be trimmed down to make clearer sentences.
    • Trimmed. I tried to remove everything I could without taking out anything essential. --Batard0 (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, an extra paragraph will need to be added at the end with Jimmy Haslam's new ownership, now that that's official.

I'll put this on hold, and once done this can finally be passed. Wizardman 03:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for all the help and patience on this. Much appreciated. --Batard0 (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good now. Moving forward, the prose may need a bit of fine-tuning still. It's at about 12,100 words now, and a good 500 could probably be removed without losing anything of substance. For now though, the article does pass GA status. Thanks for being patient with me as well, I've done 500+ plus reviews and I don't think I've ever had one that I've spent over a month on before. Wizardman 16:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks and I'm going to make a concerted effort to get it down to 10,000-ish words. 11,000 at maximum. It could potentially be broken into separate articles, but I'm a little against that because I think that with some more fine-tuning it could be made more manageable as one article. --Batard0 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:History of the Cleveland Browns/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs references (preferably inline citations), lead needs expansion (see WP:LEAD), and some fair use acceptable pics (free ones are ideal of course). Also has some formatting issues see History of the New York Giants for an example of a good article on the subject. Quadzilla99 01:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 01:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Cleveland_Browns&oldid=1198574857"