Jump to content

Talk:1989 San Diego Chargers season

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


GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:1989 San Diego Chargers season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 19:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Review

[edit]
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

I'll do a section by section review with very specific feedback next week but two big pieces from my initial read that might take discussion/require some time

  • The LEAD doesn't really follow MOS:INTRO at the moment. It's likely going to need some expansion.
  • I'm skeptical that the game by game summaries are actually the appropriate depth - there's a reason that the FA articles on sports seasons tend to go by months for instance. However, I do see that it's not unusual for football season GAs. That said they still strike me as a tad overly detailed and, more troublingly, aren't fully cited. At minimum there should be a citation for every paragraph.
  • Another general comment as I've gone through this but you are right on the line with WP:OR in several places in this article. This can include both referencing information that might be true but isn't actually verified by the source listed and also making certain characterizations around things that aren't backed up by sources (i.e. some of the more descriptive language). They're the kind of statements that are very recognizable for any football fan but that's not entirely our audience here and we need to be careful to be representing reliable sources rather than our own descriptions. I've noted a lot of these instances below but not all of them so I'd encourage you to do a complete read through with this in mind.
  • I want to draw special attention to the 3rd bullet point under regular season about a general concern about sourcing which is related to but distinct from the concern above.
Offseason
  • My newspapers.com access has lapsed but the speculation around why Saunders was fired is not included in the part I can access. Is it included in the continuation on C4? "Saunders was perceived as having criticised the personnel decisions of Steve Ortmayer" is also somewhat passive. Perceived by whom?
  • Is there a reason Schottenheimer is the only other candidate mentioned?
  • Is it worth noting they were the first to fire their coach and the last to hire?
  • Check your footnotes for the Henning paragraph as some of the information cited to the 2/9 article actually seems to have come from 2/10
  • Who Henning had backed up is not found in the source cited
  • The Chargers having the 3rd worst passing offense is not supported by the source cited (as how many teams there were in the NFL in 1988 is hardly common knowledge such that the simple math can be justified)
  • It's a bit awkward that the first mention of McMahon in the body is as a passing mention under departures. Is there a reason you've separated out arrivals and departures as a combined section would allow for a more comprehensive flow around the various comings and goings? I think a combined section would improve the overall flow and readability.
  • Why didn't Dalliafor and Rosado play?
  • We should have a secondary rather than statistical source to justify that McMahon was injury prone
  • The Hershel Walker tie-in to Nelson strikes me as more confusing than illuminating at the moment
  • "the Chargers targeted the quarterback position" is the sort of statement I'm talking about as being on the line of OR
  • "significant choice" according to whom?
Preseason
  • There were no significant injuries during the preseason? No significant roster/starting battles besides QB?
Regular season
Game summaries
  • I'm holding off on comments about these for now given some of the broader concerns above.
  • I've gone through and don't have any suggestions for the game summaries now that they've been appropriately sourced. Thanks for sourcing the overall descriptions that lead many of them.
Images
  • Would suggest moving the McMahon picture to either Offseason, Arrivals, or Roster sections
    • I've been putting one picture near the top of these season articles to represent the whole article, so that's the thinking with using McMahon there (it was his only season with the Chargers).--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ultimately this image meets GA criteria. It's just a rather low quality image to put at the top of the article which is why I comment. But your rationale makes a bunch of sense and I don't see an alternative image to suggest (there's no image for Henning for instance). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

@Harper J. Cole: can you confirm you're still interested in doing a GA review? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Yes, standing by for your comments, thanks for taking it on.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: I've extended the lead a bit with more detail. For the game summaries, I'm using the gamebooks as the main source, as they have play-by-play details. I make a general reference to this at the start of the section, but could instead refer to each gamebook in the relevant section if that's better?--Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would suggest linking to individual gamebooks rather than the generic PFRA website is the way to go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Harper J. Cole I've added comments to the review above. While I flag some larger issues let me say that I enjoyed learning more about the Chargers season from this article - I hadn't thought about some of these players for a long time - and my concerns have to do the distinction between how a fan/talk radio show host might talk about the season and our responsibility of how to talk about it as an encyclopedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49:Thanks, I've begun work on this, though it might take a few more days. I'll let you know when I'm ready for more comments.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49:Okay, I've gone through this now and hopefully improved the problem areas.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Harper J. Cole thanks for your patience. I anticipate getting back into this soon (perhaps even today). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Harper J. Cole: really great improvements to the article. The only thing that is giving me pause from passing it is being so reliant on the Escondido Times-Advocate. Being so reliant on any one newspaper would give me pause and in this case it's not even a newspaper that would be the paper of record for San Diego - that would be either San Diego Union or Tribune at that time. I notice that you have an LA Times source in there at one point. Anything we can do to just bring in another newspaper (or two) so we're not so reliant on one? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Thanks - I've swapped out half the match reports from the Escondido Times-Advocate to the LA Times, which is a more significant paper. Other newspapers might mention Charger results in passing, but it's only the Californian ones that go into any detail, as they were a mediocre team at that time, not getting much national attention. I could use newspaper reports from the home states of their opponents, but these would relate the game mainly from the other team's perspective, so might not be as appropriate to this article.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I think that works. Passing it now. Congrats! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]