There are some gaps in essential information here, without which the story doesn't quite make sense. Adding significantly to the information in the article is generally beyond what a reviewer can do while remaining independent for review.
The sentence about criticizing handling of the Rice incident is, well, sort of true, but misleading; the part of the handling that's subject to criticism seems to be the way they'd handled it before the video came out, and this article currently says nothing about that.
The letter particularly says it's not just about that and, if I'm understanding correctly, particularly criticizes the League's policy, enacted in August iirc, that allows them to do less than what they did after the video came out. If you don't know that, and only hear what they did after the video came out, you wouldn't understand what the quoted passage from the letter is referring to.
So, one way or another, more information is needed in order to provide a coherent picture of the purpose of the letter.
Other than the somewhat questionable sentence about criticizing handling of the Rice incident, I'm satisfied that the specific facts in the article are verified. I had to pull some material about Goodell saying things that I couldn't find in the sources, and give some leeway for details I didn't see — that the video was release this week (which the sources surprisingly did not mention, afaics), and that it took place in a hotel (the source that identifies the building at all calls it a "casino") — but there aren't any lurking verification problems here.
Unless it can be refreshed by some newer development, this article has to be resubmitted, reviewed, and published before midnight UTC Sunday night, which is 8pm Sunday evening on the US East Coast.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
There are some gaps in essential information here, without which the story doesn't quite make sense. Adding significantly to the information in the article is generally beyond what a reviewer can do while remaining independent for review.
The sentence about criticizing handling of the Rice incident is, well, sort of true, but misleading; the part of the handling that's subject to criticism seems to be the way they'd handled it before the video came out, and this article currently says nothing about that.
The letter particularly says it's not just about that and, if I'm understanding correctly, particularly criticizes the League's policy, enacted in August iirc, that allows them to do less than what they did after the video came out. If you don't know that, and only hear what they did after the video came out, you wouldn't understand what the quoted passage from the letter is referring to.
So, one way or another, more information is needed in order to provide a coherent picture of the purpose of the letter.
Other than the somewhat questionable sentence about criticizing handling of the Rice incident, I'm satisfied that the specific facts in the article are verified. I had to pull some material about Goodell saying things that I couldn't find in the sources, and give some leeway for details I didn't see — that the video was release this week (which the sources surprisingly did not mention, afaics), and that it took place in a hotel (the source that identifies the building at all calls it a "casino") — but there aren't any lurking verification problems here.
Unless it can be refreshed by some newer development, this article has to be resubmitted, reviewed, and published before midnight UTC Sunday night, which is 8pm Sunday evening on the US East Coast.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
