Talk:Shane Morris/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 17:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links:OK
• External links:OK
• Reference check: 2 issues
  • 404: Michigan ready to play Shane Morris if opportunity arises Saturday; not hiding anything vs. CMU (info) [annarbor.com]
  • 404 :Derrick Green leads Michigan in rushing, Shane Morris gets work and 11 true freshmen see time (info) [annarbor.com]

Comments: What I expected to be pretty straight forward for a review was a bit shaken once I closely read through it. No image for Shane Morris, even a fair use claimed one would be better than nothing at this time. I'm not entirely sure that I agree with some of the modifications made here, but I am not a major editor in the sports area.... but I'll get to that. For the lede, it is a bit short and one thing stands out "true freshman", this is jargon to me, or is there such a thing as a "fake freshman"? The Early Life section seems good until I really took a close look at it. We do not have any information on when and where he was born or anything prior to high school. For someone born in 1994, that's a pretty big omission. The first sentence actually has me confused because I expected an introduction, not such a statement. Its awkward. Then the next sentence is about someone other than Morris, distracting my concentration. Then it flips back to Morris ( I assume) without stating it as such and says how he won that and lost another, in the same sentence. Then again it goes into someone unknown and un-introduced is brought up.

• Fair use images are not acceptable for WP:BLP subjects.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• WRT, WP:LEAD length, the issue is whether the main body is adequately summarized. I don't think more is needed in the LEAD in this regard. True Freshman as opposed to redshirt freshman (freshman athletically who is a sophomore academically).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• We do have information on when he was born, but not where.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Your objective is to assess whether this article summarizes what is in the public domain.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• From what I can tell the opening story is this subject's introduction to the public domain. I do not think he did anything previous to those games that was notable enough to have been written about in the press. What do you think might be missing. I do not think this story could be told without describing who he came upon the chance to play (injury to two other quarterbacks).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The next paragraph is better, but I don't know about the "he was a lifelong Michigan fan, he hoped for an offer.." is really fitting or proper here. The sentence is jumbled as well. Even the next sentence just reads poorly. At the end, we are left with a loose hook about actively recruiting prospects for his team... does it matter, and if so, why? The next paragraph is no better with repeating sidetracking for Michigan's "greatest quarterback products" - its like this is not so much about Morris as it is the history of the team. As it goes on the last section is a bit weird, missing a comma after January 2013, and having in parenthesis a statement which appears to be editorializing. Why do we need the time of his submission to the minute?

• I don't understand why this is inappropriate. I would gladly restructure the sentence if you were to offer instruction.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• This entire paragraph is a simple chronological documentation of his commitment. It summarizes the public record. If you knew sports, I would request your opinion on the recruiting of others. However, since it seems you don't I would encourage you to request a second opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Why do I feel like a person who does not like football is reviewing a football article. This content about quaterback rankings is not "sidetracking" based on the dozens of similar articles that others who like football have approved.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think any of this content is "wierd" to a person who likes American football. It is all detail about the public record.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• The time clarifies first thing in the morning with precise detail.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Another question I have is that the different heights and weights in the infobox are said to be averaged between Scout and Rivals... isn't this wrong to do? Obviously height and weight will change, but I don't think averaging them together represents an improvement - quite the contrary, because its offering a third number arrived from a calculation not represented by either source to create new data. The College section seems to be just more off topic in places and I find the "personal" section too short for its own section. I'll put this on hold, but I think it needs some refocusing and copyediting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is the darndest review I have ever been through.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Do you know how many thousands of articles consider the average of scout and rivals to be correct? What it is doing is taking two reliable sources and saying we don't know what his high school weight was exactly, but the average of these two is a good estimate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• I don't really know what to say other than I look forward to a WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not remember MUG applying to preclude all non-free images or video broadcasts of a subject, could you please direct to another discussion on this because WP:MUG is for out of context and images where the subject would not want to be seen. Images need to go by the Wikipedia:Image use policy It is not required for GA, but I'd prefer it. I do not know what a "True freshman" or a "Redshirt freshman" is, perhaps you should explain it in the article. I ask because it is sport's jargon. I've never heard that I need to weigh all public information to see if an article meets the broad category. There is an expectation that some context be given, and if its absence it does not meet the broad category than it does not become a GA. Do you see how this line of thinking would be a problem for Milhist and other matters - we'd have GA's on near stubs. If the article doesn't or cannot satisfy the basic biographical information that is reasonably expected on such an article, than it doesn't meet the broad category. Though rather than get all defensive, it is not too big of an issue, but I don't see how two tiny sentences meet the "personal" aspect for a separate section - why not integrate it elsewhere? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:MUG is not the issue. See WP:NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• In the main body True freshman and Redshirt freshman are now juxtapposed in the same sentence. One has a link to explain things.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• It is short of a place of birth. I concede this fact.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Content rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• As much as I personally disagree with the NFCC matter here, as Criterions 1a and 1b suggest to me that since both are "no" that it could be alright. Though this is hardly the place to debate that. Thank you for your fixes and I am satisfied this now meets GA. Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)