# Talk:Marion Motley

But at the time, racism was a big role in jobs and he was turned down most offers.
Pardon?  --The Kevin 17:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
--YANK6113 01:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)YANK6113  The end of paragraph 3 "...which was unusual at that time." In 1950 many football players were still playing both on offense and defense." In 1950, it wasn't unusual for players to play both offense and defense. I'll see if I can get statistics to prove this and come back later.

Marion Motley was ranked #74 on the NFL Channel's The Top 100 Greatest Players. (2010). Presenter: Mike Brown.Cjstanonis (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marion Motley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 20:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm struggling to find anything to say about this one! Really solid and the prose is excellent. But just a few nit-picks.

Thanks, and thanks for picking it up. --Batard0 (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
"Hobbled by knee injuries...": I've never seen hobbled used in this sense before!
I substituted "slowed" for avoidance of confusion. --Batard0 (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The issue of discrimination is raised here, but I wonder could more be said about it? For example, what did the public make of having black players on the team at the time? However, I'm perfectly happy if you think it is covered enough. But, I would suggest adding a little more to the lead about racial discrimination during his playing career.
I added a paragraph to the lead about racism and another one in the body to try to build more context around it. The sources I have don't cover the public reaction to black players too much; one says that many people were used to seeing black players on teams because college teams had already been integrated for many years. It seems it didn't faze anybody too much in Ohio, although it certainly did in the South. I hope this suffices; if not I'll add some more detail. --Batard0 (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The linking in the article could be improved. I think there are several things that could be linked, such as fullback, lineback, win-loss record, rushing. I'd suggest going through carefully to see what could be done for us non-specialists.
I tried to go through and improve the linking as much as possible. Let me know if you notice any areas for further improvement. --Batard0 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Spotchecks generally fine, just two issues that I saw after checking plenty of references:
"he simply wanted to win and did not care about race": A bit of a stretch from the given source. It simply states he had no problem over race.
I deleted the quoted material, as you're right -- it's not entirely supported by the source. --Batard0 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
On further review, I found a better page to cite (31 in the same source): "Paul Brown was determined to put together the best team that anybody had ever seen, he was going to do so with black players, and nobody was going to have anything to say about it." I substituted: "he wanted to win and would not let racism get in his way" --Batard0 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
"The 1953 season was no better for Motley. His effectiveness was again limited by injury, and he played only a bit part in the Browns' championship run that year. Cleveland finished with an 11–1 record and faced Detroit in the championship for the second year in a row.[26]": Ref 26 does not mention Motley according to Google books.
Thanks for the catch. I reworded it slightly and sourced it to a different page (288 of the same ref) that discusses the end of Motley's career. The original ref does cover the latter part about Cleveland's record and facing Detroit in the championship, I believe. --Batard0 (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Image is fine, sourcing fine.
And that's all I can find (and I'm usually fussy!). Superb work, and I followed it really well even with some links missing. I'll place it on hold, but this will be a quick one to fix. Sorry you had to wait so long for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks lots for the thorough look, especially the suggestions about race and the sourcing. I appreciate all the help making this better, and there's certainly no need to apologize. The review system is by nature a little slow, at least until someone does a drive. --Batard0 (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
All good now, passing. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)