Talk:2012 Alabama Crimson Tide football team/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Brambleclawx (talk · contribs) 18:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comment

I am Brambleclawx, and I will be reviewing this article for GA. My initial assessment is that this article certainly looks impressive. It also appears to pass criteria to avoid a quick-fail. I will be using the GA checklist below.

Hi Brambleclawx! I know this is a long article and I do look forward to working with you through this GAN. Also, I will be traveling over the next few days so there might be a slight delay in my responses at times. Thanks again! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I might be off and on too. But I'll do my best to get this reviewed ASAP. Brambleclawx 14:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on June 20, 2013. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the six good article criteria.

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

• You may wish to identify (in the lead) who A. J. McCarron is, since readers may not be familiar with team member names. Brambleclawx 18:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Identified McCarron as the starting quarterback in the lead. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Under "Coaching staff", should it be "linebackers' coach", or is it correct as is? (my knowledge of football is not that good) Also, in the table of coaching staff, head coach is the only title which does not capitalize both words. As far as I know, those positions are not proper nouns, so I suspect the others ones should not capitalize the second word. However, featured articles in the college football project do capitalize both, so maybe that's correct. Either way, pick one and make it consistent. Brambleclawx 18:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is just "Linebackers" as far as I know and have seen used. I have also addressed the capitalization issue by making them all lowercase. Patriarca12 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• As well, your returning starters section looks more like a "not returning starters" section to me: am I correct in assuming graduating means that the starter is not returning? If so, either the section should be renamed something like "graduating starters" or the wording in the paragraph be changed a bit to mention those who are returning. Brambleclawx 18:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Great catch! I have looked at this article 100s of times and never thought about it like that. I have added an additional subheading to address this. Patriarca12 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Yeldon became the first true freshman to rush for 100 yards" What would make a freshman not a true freshman? Unclear. Brambleclawx 14:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• In college athletics, many freshman athletes are redshirted their first year and do not see varsity play until their sophomore year when they are then classified as redshirt freshmen. True freshmen do not have a redshirt year and see varsity play during their freshmen year.I have reworded the sentence from "true" to "non-redshirted" freshman to help clarify. Patriarca12 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The first half concluded with a Lacy fumble and when Cody Mandell mishandled a snap on successive offensive possession for Alabama, and with a Missouri punt and Berkstresser fumble that made the halftime score 28–7" I'm confused. Sentence doesn't make sense. Brambleclawx 22:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• That is indeed a confusing sentence. I have removed it altogether and feel that the game summary still fully tells the story of the Missouri game. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• "In a game that saw five lead changes, Alabama secured a 32–28 victory only after time expired with the Bulldogs at the Crimson Tide five-yard line." In my opinion, this line does not seem to have a very encyclopedic tone. It feels rather like a newspaper article hook instead. Brambleclawx 20:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have revised and made the tone more encyclopedic. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, but I don't think the last line of the all-star games section is necessary (the one about which ones they didn't participate in) Brambleclawx 17:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am not totally opposed to removing the statement. However, I do feel it adds to the article as well as it quickly notes that Bama did not have players compete in these exhibitions as opposed to readers making the assumption that they did not. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sure. Then we'll leave as is. Brambleclawx 14:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Manual of Style compliance:

• I think it'd be a good idea to indicate somewhere that the article refers to American football, as opposed to association football (aka football to the British and soccer to Americans). Brambleclawx 14:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Added a wikilink to college football in the second sentence of the lead. Patriarca12 (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• For the depth chart, I'm going to guess it's ok that the positions are abbreviated because they're wikilinked and there's a lack of room, but in the following paragraphs, there are unexplained abbreviations not seen above like OLB. These should either be written in full, or wikilinked. Brambleclawx 19:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Have now used position names instead of abbreviations in the recruiting class section. Patriarca12 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Also, I can't remember if I fixed it all, but you had some number style conflicts. While you followed the guideline that numbers 1-9 should be figures, and those greater written, it is important to note that when comparing things, both numbers should be the same format (I fixed it lower in the article, but I'm not sure if I did in the top). For example, you would say "they ranked 1st in x and 17th in y" or "first in x and seventeenth in y", but not "1st in x and seventeenth in y". Brambleclawx 20:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think I have corrected this issue where it has arisen. There may be another instance I have not caught, but I do believe I have this issue resolved now. Patriarca12 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

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:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

• All in all, a very impressive article. I'm sorry it took this long, but I am something of a spelling and grammar stickler. Congratulations! Brambleclawx 14:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the review and no worries on taking a while. It was well worth the wait! Patriarca12 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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.