Talk:1920 Cleveland Tigers (NFL) season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 21:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   See comment section.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   See comment section.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold just for so the last comment can be addressed.--Dom497 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Access dates are missing on several of the references/notes.--Dom497 (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have added access dates.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The book refs in the Note section don't have access dates.--Dom497 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Which ones? If you're talking about (for example) "PFRA Research 1980, pp. 3–4", I'm using the template {{harvnb}}, which doesn't have an accessdate parameter.
        —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Ok, its fine then.--Dom497 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• In the roster section, readers looking at an article like this for the first time will likely not know what LOE-DE, ROE-DE, etc, mean. Spell out the full position and you can put the short form in brackets if you wish.--Dom497 (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have added a table instead. Will this suffice?
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yup, thats fine!--Dom497 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Though the image section of the review is a pass, try to find an image of the team or something. I know its 1920 so it may be pretty hard but just give it a shot.--Dom497 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I found a picture of the stadium. Google Images did not provide much.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Good enough.--Dom497 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Week 3 has no refs.--Dom497 (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Added refs.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Standings section has no refs.--Dom497 (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Added a reference.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• "They then invited other professional teams to a second meeting on September 17." Source?--Dom497 (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Added source.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• "At that meeting...", The first or second?--Dom497 (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The second. Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Any refs that show that there were no games for the team for weeks 1,2,11,12,13?--Dom497 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there's a reference at the top of the table (NFL History 2003, pp. 1–7). That shows all the games for the entire 1920 season for all teams.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 22:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Whoops, didn't see that!--Dom497 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)