Jump to content

Talk:1973 Buffalo Bills season/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Will try to finish the review as quickly as possible... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I saw the concern of the first review was that the article was almost entirely based on one source (football-reference), which shows only statistics. At that point, 19 out of 28 references were from that site. The reviewer said you didn't need to rush, but two days later you nominated again; now 33 out of 54 are from that site. Two days is fast, but I'll just assume you were lucky and found enough extra references in this short time.[reply]

I do this review without any knowledge of the sport other than occasionally seeing a few seconds in a movie. This should not stop me from reviewing the article, but keep in mind that some things thay may be obvious to you are not so obvious to me.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    MoS: see below. Will look at the prose later.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    All of the "Awards and records" should be sourced!
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    See below
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    There are no images, but I understand 1973 is a difficult time period: not public domain yet, and you probably did not make pictures yourself. But you may consider putting a more recent picture of OJ Simpson in, for example.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Manual of Style
Broad in coverage
  • A lot is said about Simpsons record. That they became second in their league is mentioned only in the lead, and can be read from the Standings table. Isn't the league position the most important thing in a season? If they could have had the option, don't you think they would have preferred the first place without the record over the second place with the record? I guess (but I don't know) that the league position needs more attention. Were they satisfied? Did their league position qualify them for any qualification matches? I found out it did not, but the article does not mention anything about it.
I understand that this season is most remembered for Simpson's record, and not for their second place in the league, so this is OK.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional points that I don't know where to put
Why didn't you take the previous reviewers advice and find some extra sources? I did a quick search, and found some that I think could fit in easily:
Prose

As I said before, I know nearly nothing about American Football. Still, this article was not problematic to read. The few things I still had some problems with, may need an extra explanation or wikilink, but other than that, the article is accessible to non-experts. English is not my mother tongue, so some "corrections" that I proposed below may not be needed. In that case, just tell me I'm wrong. This is also the reason that I did not change these in the article, but listed them here. It also included some things not related to prose but that I missed in my first check.

And that's all!

Thanks for the review. I may not get to respond to these issues until the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if it seems that I am ignoring your review. I am trying to finish up a project. My goal is to get my sandbox of articles cleaned up and into userspace by this weekend. This review is on the back burner.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned, there is no deadline for this nomination. I have this page on my watchlist, so once you get to this article, I will notice. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not much time today. Will be back in a few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things still remaining:

And that's a good reason to use them in the infox, but why in the schedule table? It has nothing to do with me not liking the colors or anything, but there is an accessability problem (WP:COLOR). White on red would work, white on blue would work, but blue on dark red is hard to read, not only for colorblind users. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I have chosen a different combination of their three colors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's really close to GA.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good enough for GA now, passing. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:1973_Buffalo_Bills_season/GA2&oldid=382494804"