Talk:LeGarrette Blount/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on September 24, 2009. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the six good article criteria.

I'll be reviewing this article for GA.--Giants 27(c|s) 00:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

If I were not a football fan or follower I'd have no idea what, sharing the stage, meant. Please re-word.
He was reinstated by new coach Chip Kelly, remove that sentence as it was just mentioned with basically the same wording a sentence before.

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Blount then pushed teammate Garrett Embry, who was attempting to restrain him. Boise State replayed the punch on their large screen in the end-zone multiple times, before Blount had returned to the locker room is unreferenced.

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

There's a few citiation needed tags, please add sources in these locations.

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

But Blount brought lackluster performances sounds strange mainly lackluster please choose a different word.

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Image is missing alt text.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

I'm placing this article on hold to allow for these changes to be made.--Giants 27(c|s) 01:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants, thanks for the thorough review. I've made a few changes; I'll be back in the next few days to finish up. -Pete (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, I'll give you a week to complete the changes so no rush.--Giants 27(c|s) 01:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added the final refs. I noticed many urls don't have accessdates though, those should be added. Wizardman 15:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I count 26 refs missing accessdates and I agree they should definetely be added.--Giants 27(c|s) 16:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wizardman for tracking those down! I will double-check and add accessdates to all links; otherwise, I think we're done with everything, with one exception: I'm not sure why the term "lackluster" is a problem. It's a term used in a number of sources. Can we maybe get another opinion? I'm sure there are other words that could be used, but I don't really understand the need. I'll post back after addressing the accessdate parameters. -Pete (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> Okay, I think this is all done! Ready for another look, at least =) -Pete (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33 and 46 are missing retrieval dates.--Giants 27(c|s) 21:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are references to print publications -- in all my GA and FA work, my understanding has always been that "retrieval date" referred to accessing a web site, which might change over time. I've never included accessdates on citations that don't refer to web sites. Do you have a different understanding of how they're supposed to work? If so, what? -Pete (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I'm now passing the article (the lackluster thing isn't that big of a deal). Congrats!--Giants 27(c|s) 21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much -- appreciate the detailed feedback, thanks for helping make the article better and for promoting it! -Pete (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.