Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This will be a quick fail for the following reasons that are collectively an undue amount of work to be expected within the GAN process:

• Laughingly small lede (41 words) for a 781 word article
• Four uncited sections for which I have now added tags
• No less than six single line paragraphs
• Most of the article reads like a diary of joining and leaving teams. No effort has been made to provide background or context for the moves, or generally for his career as a whole

This article is low effort and in poor shape. It is currently rated start-class and I think this is an accurate reflection of where it is at. The last time I can find you having actually edited this article is 2 May 2020‎. It is clear that you have not made any effort to check over this article or improve it prior to nominating it. You are a very experienced editor and I hope I am amply demonstrating my disappointment that you would believe this article is in any way ready for GAN (or even a B-class assessment). Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 01:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Although some of the specific issues from the previous GA review have been addressed (the lede is a suitable length now, and there is no longer unsourced sentences) the article is still a long way from meeting GA criteria. I would reiterate more, but I think what Pickersgill said in the previous review still holds true: "Most of the article reads like a diary of joining and leaving teams. No effort has been made to provide background or context for the moves, or generally for his career as a whole." Also, there's wide gaps in the biography. What did he do at college? He played for the Michigan Wolverines, talk about that a little! Use broader context about the teams themselves in those years, what were they doing? This is a persistent trend with the sports GANs that have recently been failed: they lack proper context to help readers understand what these guys were doing beyond their pure stats. Also like, hell, we still have a large number of single-line paragraphs. Those are all asking for context that I am sure exists. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• User:Generalissima, I haven't disagreed with the weaknesses pointed out in a lot of the nominations although many of the fails are pure vindictive frustration by a posse of GA reviewers looking hard for stuff to quibble with. Schofield is an offensive lineman. They get no press. If the subject is not an All-star, like this guy there is not really much color to add. The last WP:GA to pass in sports and recreation besides my own was Jerry Atkinson (American football). This article is better than that and definitely not far from WP:WIAGA. This article doesn't even have hardly any stats unless you are counting games played. You are bending over backwards to fail this article. No one who knows football would consider this far from a GA. Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know. Even if a little expansion is needed, that is not a reason to fail as long as it is minor stuff.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger: I've looked at your nominations in art, TV, and sports. They all share these problems. Any problem here is far beyond the local MoS or guidelines for one particular subject matter, and is more about generally nominating large amounts of articles that just aren't ready. Before I nominate anything for GA, I go through the checklist myself and think: would I pass this nomination without complaint? I really struggle to imagine someone as experienced as you saying "yes" about articles in this sort of condition. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

    Tony, if you have an issue with any of the other quickfails, I recommend you discuss your specific concerns with the individual editors who made them, myself included. Singling out Generalissima to respond to and accusing everyone else of acting in "pure vindictive frustration" is not a reasonable response, especially when multiple editors have posted to your talk page objecting to your behavior. (I note also that you have failed to respond to any of these messages.) Please keep in mind that GAN does not exist to facilitate your progress in the WikiCup, but to ensure that articles are written to meet the GACR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)