Wikipedia

Talk:LeSean McCoy/GA1

< Talk:LeSean McCoy
Latest comment: 10 years ago by EricEnfermero in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago37 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 04:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am happy to review this submission. Many thanks to the nominator for the work that has gone into this so far. I will begin with a quick readthrough, then will go section by section and leave feedback here. I should have some initial comments posted within the next day or two. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 04:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

After reading through the article, it is clear that a good deal of valuable information has been added, especially for a player whose NFL career is probably still in its early stages. However, one of the big issues here involves criterion #1 of the Good Article criteria - the article must be clearly written and free of major problems with things like grammar and spelling. I have a lot of suggestions that could help along these lines. We can leave this nomination open for a week while you address the suggestions below. Another option would be to close the review now, work on the article at your own pace, then renominate the article for consideration.

Lead

edit

* Lead states that 2007 was his first year at Pitt. No need to include "in his sophomore year of college" for the next year.

  • second-team and All-American should have hyphens.
  • "Thus far in 2013" and "currently" - specify how far into 2013 (after Week ___ or a specific date) as this will go out of date eventually.
  • Avoid opinions like "has had great success" unless you are quoting someone - best to stick with objective facts like yards rushing or TDs

Early years

edit
  • I would go with a more chronological approach. Right now you talk about the senior year, sophomore year, junior year and senior year again. You mention Ricky Watters early in the section and then at the end of it. Later it jumps from 2007 to 2004. There are multiple ways to organize this, but right now it's a little difficult to keep up with as a reader.
  • A reference is needed after the sentence that says he was once the top prospect in the nation since that's a pretty exceptional claim. The reference after the next sentence says McCoy was once one of the top five.

  Not done. There is a direct quote now and a reference, but unless I'm missing something, the reference does not contain the quote. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC) I honestly do not see where you are getting this. The quote in the fourth paragraph is misstated according to the reference, thats my fault. It should read "rated the nation's number 11 running back... After that I am not sure exactly where you are referencing in the article. I took out the sentence about him being number one because I could not find a reference. PhillySportsGuru25 (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

* Fixed the quote to reflect what it states in the article. The quote is under the High School section of the source towards the bottom. PhillySportsGuru25 (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

* Same thing after the sentence about his academic difficulties. That's a contentious statement about a living person, one of the times we definitely want to be backed up by references per WP:MINREF.

  • If you could also break the long first paragraph into two, it would be more easily readable.

* In the last sentence, change "there" to "their" (or "his").

  • After the very first sentence in the lead, just refer to McCoy as McCoy, not LeSean or LeSean McCoy - unless the sentence could confuse two people named McCoy. See WP:LASTNAME.

  Done but there is a similar issue in the second paragraph of the next section - "starting running back LaRod Stephens-Howling". Change that to just Stephens-Howling, because you introduced his full name and position in the previous paragraph.

  • Explain how he got his nickname. It is explained in one of the references in the lead, but it is not explained in the article itself.

  Done except that the phrasing ("he would be laughing one second and next be crying") is a little awkward. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

College career - Freshman year

edit
  • This section is too long for one paragraph.

  Done but now the second paragraph is still pretty long if there's a good place to break it up. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

* "entred" - should be "entered"

* I would take out the sentence about him being eager. Hopefully all college football players are eager.

* The third sentence has an extra "who" in it.

* Panthers Digest - and most other publications - should be placed in italics (two single quote marks on each side of the phrase).

  • "In August 2007, Dave Grdnic wrote this about McCoy..." - change it to the simpler "In August 2007, Dave Grdnic wrote..." Similar problems are actually repeated multiple times in various sections of the article. I see several instances of "__________ had this to say..." instead of just "__________ said..." I would change all of those, as it will make the article easier to follow.
  • You fixed the one example, but just at a glance, this awkward wording pops up multiple times - both the freshman and sophomore year sections, as well as the 2009 and 2010 sections.
  • "On October 2, 2007..." - this sentence and the next two are too wordy.

  Not done EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • Consider paraphrasing the quote from Forde instead of quoting it directly. Only sports fans (and really only baseball fans) would fully understand the Wally Pipp reference. I would take it out, because it would be awkward to try to explain it in this article.

  Not done EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

* "freshmen All-American" should be Freshman All-American.

College career - Sophomore year

edit

* Break up this long first paragraph.

* Instead of saying that he received high praise from Dorsett, tell us what Dorsett actually said. I would also specify "Pro Football Hall of Famer Tony Dorsett" to clarify which Hall of Fame you're referring to.

* "The Panthers face" - change to "faced" and change falcons to uppercase. No comma in the next sentence.

* Lots of non-neutral language in this section - I would tone that down. Examples: big win, best game, toppled, flourished. Best game is probably not a huge deal, especially if it is sourced, but there are several non-neutral words in this part of the article.

  • Wannstedt says McCoy told him that he was staying for his junior year only a few days before McCoy decided to go pro. His sudden change of heart received significant media coverage. I would include some information about that in the article.

Professional career

edit

* I would combine the pre-draft table and the info under Philadelphia Eagles. Maybe title it NFL Draft. Right now you have two sections that are too small to stand on their own.

* Watch for non-neutral tone in the 2009 section ("yet again" versus "again"; take out "performed well" and just give the stats).

  • 2010 section: Break up the long paragraph. The same is true for the rest of the season sections.

* "made great strides to better improve his game" - take that out and just write about how he improved.

  • You can mention his number change, but I wouldn't go into detail or mention Booker, who went to the UFL without scoring an NFL TD.

  Not done EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • No problem. I see where you're coming from. You're free to comment on any of these things and tell me why they're okay. That would be better than not saying anything and then telling me that all of the feedback has been addressed. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 16:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

* "Head Coach Andy Reid" - lowercase for coach, wikilink Andy Reid

* The Reid quote has opening quotation marks but no closing quotation marks.

* "Both the Eagles and Giants" - change the end of this sentence to "with a 6-3 win-loss record"

* "yet another impressive game" - another phrase you can probably just take out

  • The part about the Next Level Awards is not written very clearly. I can't find any coverage of these awards outside of the ESPN site, so it might be best to take this out.
  • Ok. So for two years ESPN did this special thing called Next Level Awards. This is what "Next Level", means a blend of traditional statistics and the advanced metrics we call "Next Level." So what ESPN did was give out special awards. His awarded was "Locked and Loaded" and the description for the award is best running back facing a loaded box. His is the reference that I have listed in the article and it explains everything. Sorry, but I am not sure what the confusion is. http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/15211/2010-next-level-awards-wr-rb-defense. Again, if taking this out means GA, I'll do it. But I think this is important because the article has some good quotes about McCoy's running style and early career success in the NFL. PhillySportsGuru25 (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • In the 2011 section, it talks about how he finished the season, then talks about specific games, then talks about how he finished. The organization makes this hard to follow. There are a couple of places where you need a space before a parenthesis like the YPC one above.
  • 2012: "he looked every bit of it" - remove this, as it is unsourced opinion.

* 2013: Don't start off by restating his 2012 injury. Remove the next sentence with the unsourced opinion. Also take out the part about being tremendous. If you mention anything involving Wide Receiver, use lowercase. FedEx Ground Player of the Week is uppercase. Unlink Andy Reid because he will be linked earlier in the article.

* Take out the separate heading for the Snow Bowl since it's just discussed in one paragraph.

* Take out "currently leads" and replace with an "as of" date.

Endorsements

edit

* It is probably better to merge this with another section, maybe Personal, since it is too short to stand on its own.

Personal

edit
  • "It depicts McCoy at Bishop McDevitt high school, when he suffered a serious injury that threatened his football career" - you can simplify this since you've already mentioned the HS injury earlier in the article. Ex.: "It depicts McCoy in high school around the time of his ankle injury."
  • In the part about the Twitter incident, the article doesn't really give us any idea what happened. Did they exchange accusations? Call each other names? What was the dispute over?
  • The whole twitter thing I decided to take out because the whole situation was kind of awkward. I dont remember exactly what happened but something along the lines of this. He had an exchange with the "baby mama" and she accused him of being a "deadbeat dad". After this exchange went viral McCoy accused his account of being hacked, which is was not. Really just dont think this whole exchange is to important but if you want it in the article, I'll try to research it more fully. PhillySportsGuru25 (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

* On the same point, I can't find anything in the reference which states that the woman was estranged.

References

edit

* The references are mostly bare URLs. Perfectly formatted references aren't required for a GA, but including more information (title of reference, date, date retrieved, publisher, etc) will allow you to remove the ugly banner about bare URLs on the top of this page. I can help you here. WP:REFB has more information about referencing, but I would only do this after you address the other points in this review, because those are more important for GA status.

edit

* The last external link should be worked into the article or just left off the list.

Again, let me know if you would rather close this nomination than work on the above points within seven days. Let me know if I can clarify anything. Once these points are addressed, I'll go back through and make sure everything reads okay. I can address some small points like punctuation myself at that time. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 02:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've marked off the items that are no longer concerns. Some of the issues weren't adequately addressed and I noted those. After you fix those, an additional concern is that the 2011 and 2012 sections are significantly less detailed than the other sections. We try to shoot for a balance. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hey Eric. Thanks for posting and I will do the changes now. I do have some differences in opinion on some of the things above that hopefully we can work through. And also, how much more time is there before you either have to pass/fail the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillySportsGuru25 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
No problem. We can disagree on some things and that's okay. I'm flexible on things that are just my opinion. There are some Good Article criteria that we're working within, but you are working on fixing up the important things I think. I can help with some of the more basic grammar and punctuation. We still have several days - until at least 12/29 - and even that can be flexible if we're progressing. One suggestion: When you respond to a comment someone else leaves, indent your comment by adding an extra colon before it. You can see how I've done it in this comment. That way we know who is talking to who. Thanks! EricEnfermero HOWDY! 16:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Just wondering what else needs to be done in order to receive GA. I know you talked about expanding two sections which is no problem and I can have that done soon. PhillySportsGuru25 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
I would focus on making sure that the feedback above is either fixed, crossed off, or we've agreed that it's okay. For example, you still have some examples of "had this to say" as noted above, which is not how we would usually write for an encyclopedia entry. I fixed some of the minor grammar issues for you. Once we fix the above, including expanding the short sections, we can take a look and see how everything reads. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 17:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just checking in to see if we have a plan for addressing the remaining feedback on this GA review. We want to wrap up this process soon so that we don't have it hanging over our heads. In particular, there are the two sections that aren't well developed and some of the writing throughout the article is making it a little bit tougher to read. If we end up closing the nomination as unsuccessful, that isn't the worst thing in the world. That would allow you to work on the article at your pace and to request help from other editors (ex: at WP:GOCE they can help you a lot with grammar and tone fixes). If we go that route, you are free to renominate the article at any point that you feel it's ready. Just let me know what you'd like to do. You're doing great at a very early stage in your WP participation. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 11:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey Eric. I expanded the 2011 season and made most of the above changes that we talked about. The 2012 season is shorter in length because he only played in 12 games. I will try to expand upon that though. But I think most of the other changes are present and in the article and if you could list any remaining problems that would be great. And if it is not good enough at the time to go to GA thats fine. But could you just move it up from Start Class, at this point I feel the article is much better than start class, per reading the example articles of classes.Thanks PhillySportsGuru25 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your work. I uprated the article, though not to Good Article yet. You added quite a bit of great information. The biggest remaining issue is that the language isn't very concise, which goes back to criterion #1 of those Good Article criteria. I think that putting in a request at WP:GOCE would really help to smooth out some of the wording and put you closer to GA. Again, this is great work so far and I know that it can get to GA if you decide to pursue it further. More details below. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. No copyright issues. Prose has improved during review, but still contains awkward language. Some examples are still unaddressed from review.
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Nominator addressed some words to watch during review process.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Nominator sought help to convert bare URLs to useful references. Good job!
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). One quote did not match the cited source, but was addressed by the nominator during the review.
  2c. it contains no original research. Nominator improved the sourcing of the article in response to review feedback.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. May consider adding more information for the time period between infancy and high school.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Nominator addressed some concerns about subjective language.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No recent issues with vandalism or edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Copyright status is okay.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Infobox image is a little grainy, but not to the extent that it causes a problem under this criterion.
  7. Overall assessment. Good work here. The language just needs to be tightened up.

I hope that the strong work on this article can continue. It can be renominated at any point, though I would run it by WP:GOCE first for a copyedit. This is an impressive amount of work for a brand new contributor with a great deal of potential. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LeSean_McCoy/GA1&oldid=967080150"