Talk:Da'Rel Scott/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I have reviewed this article against the Good Article criteria. I find it to be very close to passing, but I feel that there are some minor changes to make first. My suggestions are:

• In the lead, it is unnecessary to state twice that Jonathan Dwyer plays for Georgia Tech. Could the second mention in the lead be shortened from "Jonathan Dwyer of Georgia Tech" to simply "Dwyer"?

• Y Done. Strikehold (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• The infobox mentions that he is a kinesiology major. Could that be included in the article?

• Y Done. Strikehold (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• In the "2008 season" section, it states that Scott re-injured his shoulder. A previous injury is not mentioned. I would like to either see the first injury mentioned or have this shortened from "re-injured" to "injured", although I'm open to discussing this.

• I believe you are mistaken here. From the 2008 section:

  "Scott "dominated early" against 23rd-ranked California with 19 carries for 87 yards and two touchdowns, but in the third quarter, he suffered a game-ending shoulder injury.[16] ... Against NC State, Scott had 23 carries for 163 yards and a 24-yard touchdown.[1] In the fourth quarter, after the third play of Maryland's game-winning drive, Meggett replaced Scott, who had re-injured his shoulder.[24]"

• I'm not sure how I missed that. I looked through the article and used the "find" function to search for "shoulder", and nothing came up. Obviously, this is no longer a concern. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the references are missing access dates ("retrieved on"). These should be included for each, even if a date of publication is given.

• I have to respectfully disagree that "retrieved on" dates are useful where publication dates are available. I know this is a widespread opinion here, but I do not believe it is justified. I believe there is a parallel example in hardcopy publications: No one argues there should a "read on" date for a book or magazine article. What information does a retrieved on date add in the presence of a publication date? In my opinion, the answer is "none", which is why I only include one or the other in articles. Strikehold (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• The difference is that, in hardcover publications, the content cannot be changed at a later date. Because internet resources can be changed/revised/updated after they are published, a "retrieved on" date clarifies that the cited information was correct as of the date of access. If someone tries to verify information that has since been revised in the original source, it is useful for the person to find an older version of the page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from that, I believe that it meets the criteria. There are no problems with stability, neutrality, or images (of course, a free use image would be great, but there's not much that can be done if one is simply not available). The breadth in coverage should be fine once information about his major is added to the prose. The references are fine aside from the access dates (I updated a few, as the pages had been moved since this article was created). The writing style is very good; I had only two minor concerns listed above, but I was very impressed with how this was written.

I will place this nomination on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed or discussed. I have added the article and this review to my watchlist, so any comments or questions can be placed here. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review and your comments. I await your reply. Strikehold (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have given my opinion about the "retrieved on" dates. You have given yours. I urge you to reconsider. With that said, the GA criteria for verifiability simply state that references must be provided. Bare urls would be reason to hold up the nomination, as would references that are lacking information that is absolutely essential to providing the reader with sufficient information. I'm not willing to fail a nomination due to a lack of access dates (particularly when, as you pointed out, dates of publication are provided). Simply put, the article meets all of the GA criteria, so it passes. I will have all of the template updated completed shortly (within half an hour), although I can't get to them right away. Great job with the article! It was very well written and interesting to read. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)