Talk:Calvin McCarty

Verifiability

As a note for anyone seeking to verify the contents of this article, most offline sources are available on ProQuest if you have access to the Newsstands portion of their database through some academic institution. If you would like a copy of a specific article to verify a fact, leave a message on my talk page and I can see about providing you with a copy. ~ Rob^Talk 11:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Calvin McCarty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 07:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to review this article. I'll begin with a readthrough to look for copyright problems or other major issues, and then I'll go back through and look for potential issues with each Good Article criterion in more detail. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

• The article doesn't really include information about his early life outside of high school sports. This may help.
  • Thanks for the find. I incorporated some information from the article, particularly about his move to Canada, in the Personal Life section. Do you think that should be at the top or bottom of the article? It is undoubtedly not what he's known for, so I do tend to prefer keeping it at the bottom, but a case could be made for chronology. I chose not to incorporate the bullying information in the article you linked, given how personal that is. Unless it's something he's known for or regularly talks about (which I could find no evidence of), I think it would be undue weight placed on a minor life detail to include it in the article. ~ Rob^Talk 22:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity in the high school section, I would mention the city where St. Thomas More Collegiate is located. The infobox has it, but I think it should be in the body as well, especially since he was born in Oklahoma and moved to Canada at some point.
  •  Done Information on his move is in the Personal Life section now as well, as per the above point.

• His Grade 9 statistics are estimates, with the explanation that the coach didn't keep player stats. However, the rest of his high school stats are stated as facts. Did something change which allowed more certainty about his HS numbers after that year?
  • This is not something clearly explained in the sources, but note that most statistics after his Grade 9 year are individual game statistics, not season statistics. It's possible that his stats were tracked by commentators/reporters in individual games as he became more relevant and a bigger part of the team. The only season for which season statistics are available is his final year, where he was on the scouting radar. Those statistics were almost certainly tracked by scouts in addition to local news. This is all my conjecture, however. All I know for sure is that statistics were not published in Grade 9, at least not that I could find in the databases I searched. ~ Rob^Talk 22:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like his 2015 stats were fully updated, and there is no 2015 season section in the prose.
  • This is something I'll be handling Soon(TM), probably tomorrow. I was aware of the issue, but I've been very busy this year, so I've been waiting to add this information until the article came up for review. ~ Rob^Talk 22:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    •  Done Info added. ~ Rob^Talk 11:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Those are the issues that stick out to me at first glance. The article obviously reflects a high degree of research and I look forward to working with you in more detail. I'll separate out my feedback into the specific GA criteria under which it falls, and I'll keep a list of optional items that I think would improve the article but which won't be required for a GA pass. Thanks to the nominator and other editors for the work that has already gone into this entry. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:GACR #1 (well written)

• To me, the lead section seems a bit short for an article of this size.
  •  Semi-done Let me know what you think of the expanded lead. A good deal of the main article consists of statistics that have no place in the lead, but I can expand it further with a limited use of statistics (career totals of rushing yards, etc) if you think that's worthwhile. I've always preferred a short punchy lead that answers the "Who is this guy?" question and not much more, but that's just me. ~ Rob^Talk 12:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• The lead also goes in a sort of reverse chronological order and it makes no mention of his high school career, which takes up a significant portion of the body of the entry.
  •  Semi-done I'm trying to balance chronology vs. significance here. There's not much doubt that his high school career only has local relevance and his college career was fairly uninteresting. He's notable due to his professional activities, so I think placing that at the top makes sense. On the other hand, you're correct that chronology is also desirable. The solution I've put in place for now is to summarize his professional career first before looping back and going in chronological order through all activities (high school, college, and then a mention of his professional). Let me know your thoughts on this. ~ Rob^Talk 12:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• HS 2nd para: "one of Knights' two leading rushers" - the Knights'
  •  Done ~ Rob^Talk 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• next para: "the youngest and first Grade 10 player to earn this award" - the meaning is ambiguous here. Youngest player and first Grade 10 player to earn the award? Youngest player in Grade 10 to earn the award? Can we simplify this sentence?
  •  Done I just removed the Grade 10 bit, since school grade is just a less specific measure of age. ~ Rob^Talk 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• "close 21-20" - remove "close" as a one-point game needs no such descriptor
  •  Done ~ Rob^Talk 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• "McCarty reportedly chose football" - no need for reportedly, as this is sourced and doesn't seem dubious
  •  Done ~ Rob^Talk 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Boise State: "a 11–1 season" - an 11–1 season
  •  Done ~ Rob^Talk 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Edmonton: "multiple year contract" - hyphen for multiple-year
  •  Done ~ Rob^Talk 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• 2011: "short-gain rushing situations" - change to short-yardage situations (may or may not gain)
  •  Done ~ Rob^Talk 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• "College athletes make up Calvin McCarty's family." Seems like odd wording. Maybe just leave it out entirely and begin with the second sentence in that section.
  •  Done Originally had rephrased it, but I wound up just removing it. Not really necessary. ~ Rob^Talk 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:GACR #2 (verifiable with no original research)

• In the lead: "known for being able to fill many roles at his position" - this is sourced to a 2010 article, before he was playing his current position (FB). Is there a way to rephrase this? Even better, you could have the quote in the appropriate part of the body and paraphrase it in the lead without suggesting that it applies to his current position.
  •  Semi-done While there is obviously a distinction between a fullback and a tailback, they're both running backs, and they're similar positions. The point of the quote is to demonstrate that he's known for doing it all - blocking, rushing, catching, special teams. Which position he starts in doesn't really matter when talking about his actual skills, if that makes sense. I chose to use this quote for the lead because I thought it was a particularly apt and concise description of what McCarty brings to the team. In order to prevent any confusion, I've now noted in the article that the quote is from 2010. Does this fix your concern? ~ Rob^Talk 12:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• The URL for McCarty's Eskimos profile, cited several times, leads to a generic Eskimos page with no info about McCarty.
  •  Done This was an unfortunate change to the Eskimos' website which left a lot of articles hurting. Archive link added. ~ Rob^Talk 23:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:GACR #3 (broad in its coverage)

This looks good other than the early life and 2015 issues raised at the top of the review.

• Marking  Done for reference. Handling the 2015 issues in the section at the top of the review. ~ Rob^Talk 23:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:GACR #4 (neutral)

• "just 48 yards on 9 carries" - 48 yards is great on 9 carries (over 5 YPC), can remove "just"
  •  Done ~ Rob^Talk 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• The article contains a number of subjective terms ("immediately a significant factor", "large role", "blowout", "capitalized on the opportunities he was given") in cases where it might be better to let statistics speak for themselves, but I don't feel like these phrases introduce particularly serious neutrality issues.
  • Personally, I feel these sorts of phrases are appropriate when supported by sources. For instance, a source stating that he had a 100+ yards rushing and three touchdowns in his first game with the Vikings clearly shows he was "immediately a significant factor". In the two cases I used the term "blowout", a specific acknowledgement of the score difference was included in the source. And so on. I'm certainly open to considering specific usages that you feel could be more neutral, but I think it's important to have some "color" in an article to prevent it from becoming just a wall of statistics. ~ Rob^Talk 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:GACR #5 (stable)

The article history is stable. No need to do anything here.

• Marking  Done just for reference. ~ Rob^Talk 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:GACR #6 (illustrated, if possible, with images)

One image with clear copyright status. The caption could be a bit more succinct by not using the full date or the subject's first name.

•  Done The caption is now substantially shorter. As a side note, if you happened to find any decent images with suitable copyright status in your research surrounding this review, I'd love to see them. The process of trying to find a decent face image left me frustrated. I even reached out to Mr. McCarty himself and appeared to be getting somewhere, but he decided against dedicating time to it when he realized it would require a new picture or permission from the original photographer. ~ Rob^Talk 23:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-GACR feedback

Note: These are optional improvements, as I don't think they fall strictly under a GA criterion. If no one gets a chance to make these changes during the review, I might make them myself.

• I notice that the reference section uses a DMY date format, but the body and infobox use an MDY format.
• Caps issue (maciocia) in what is currently ref #24, "Eskimos' maciocia signs McCarty".
• Is there any more info on his decisions to transfer twice, especially from Boise State to a two-year college?
• You might describe Reedley College as a junior college in California. I hadn't heard of it and thought it might actually be in Canada.
• I'm not sure how many people outside of Oklahoma will know Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College as simply NEO.
  • I'd like to note that I appreciate these non-GACR recommendations, and I do plan to follow up on them. I may not get to them during the edits for the review itself, since I'm a bit busy at the moment (in the middle of figuring out which grad school I'm going to). I definitely will follow up on them at a later date if I don't get to them now, though. ~ Rob^Talk 23:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll return with more feedback under each criterion listed above. Thanks again. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm finished with feedback for now and will await responses to the relevant (GACR) sections. EricEnfermero (Talk) 10:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@EricEnfermero: I took a first pass through it with limited time. I left the issues that were more complicated for my next pass tomorrow, but if you care to look through the comments I made already, feel free. I'll ping you when I'm done with the 2015 and lead stuff tomorrow. Thanks again for your thorough review! ~ Rob^Talk 23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@EricEnfermero: I've responded to everything now. Some points will need further discussion, I'm sure. Take a look at your leisure. Thanks again for reviewing! ~ Rob^Talk 12:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Rob - Thanks for your quick responses. I'm satisfied with the fixes and responses to my feedback, and I don't think that there are any outstanding issues that would stop this article from meeting the GA criteria. I am happy to pass the article at this point. In particular, I appreciate (and agree with) your responses related to the lead and the info on the most recent season. I made a few small copyedits just now, but feel free to revert if they were not helpful, because I don't think GA status hinged on anything I just did.

In regard to the early life information, I personally prefer a chronological layout (with the most significant events in the lead, but not at the very beginning of the body). However, the GA-relevant guideline (WP:LAYOUT) indicates that we can be flexible and use our judgment rather than prescribing chronological order. Please let me know if I can help with further development of the article, and I thank you for the work that you have done to bring this to GA. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)