Talk:2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review, checking quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC) ✓ Pass Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • A large number of sentences start The Steeelers or Pittsburgh. Consider some copy-editing to improve the prose style. Lead: Based on the previous season's results, the Steelers faced the most difficult in the league Most difficult what? Post-season Due to the Steelers' regular season record the team finished in second place in the AFC, a bit clumsy, perhaps Their regular season record gave the Steelers second place in the AFC. These are minor points, I would suggest one more cast trough to make copy-edits. WP:MOS OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I went through the article and changed some of the wording, specifically the overuse of Steelers as you mentioned. I completely argree that it's repetitive and wish I could do more, but there's not a ton that can be done about it because we have to call them something and it probably becomes couter-productive to say "them" or "they". Lead "most difficult schedule" Fixed. Post-season Changed sentence. blackngold29 03:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent, I agree that it is difficult sometimes to find suitable phrasing.  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Well referenced, #101 is broken, I have placed a dead link template. all other references check out. all are reliable sources, no WP:OR Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the broken linked citation, there were two cites on that sentence and the other one covers everything. blackngold29 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Good, keep an eye on links, especially press or media as they are likely to disappear, but may be replaced by old versions from the Internet Archive.  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • The article is certainly thorough and broad in scope - I was worried by the length but following the recommendation at Wikipedia:LENGTH#Notes the prose is only 60k which is acceptable. The article remains focussed throughout. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • The article adheres to a WP:NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • The article is stable, no edit warring, evidence of good editor co-operation on talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • The one image used is correctly tagged and licensed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Just a few points above, if these can be addressed I will be happy to pass. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent, all points have been addressed.  Done A Good article definitely. I now know more than I ever thought I would about the Steelers (speaking as a Bristol City F. C. supporter). Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)