Talk:Paul Roach

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:Paul Roach/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 17:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this one. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

• I copyedited the article here. Let me know if you disagree with any of the edits.
• I also archived the references.
• Roach developed a reputation as one of the best "offensive minds" in the NFL and was hired as offensive coordinator by the Green Bay Packers in 1975, the first person ever to hold the position - I am guessing you mean he was he first OC the Packers ever had? If so, clarify that by adding "for the Packers" or something like that to the end.
  • Changed.
• Roach earned all-conference honors in football twice[a] while playing end and in the backfield and was team captain as a senior., if the sources differ on two or three, why not say that in the article? What made you choose "twice"?
  • I might have seen a second source stating he was selected twice, but I can't remember. I just changed it to "two or three times" with a note that sources conflict.
• Ref spot check:
  • Checked #2, 4, 8, 11, 18, 22, 24

Looks good, putting on hold. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've addressed both of the issues, @Gonzo fan2007: BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Passing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:15, 13 September 2023 (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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet talk 09:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Paul Roach became so popular for coaching the Wyoming Cowboys football team that people voted for him to be the state's governor? Source: Casper Star-Tribune ("Despite the end-of-the-season slide, the overall success of the four years two WAC titles, three bowl appearances and a 35-11 overall record quickly turned Roach into a legend in Wyoming sports history. Heck, he even got a few votes for governor in the 1990 election.")
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/September 2023 southwestern U.S. floods

5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Paul Roach; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment and not a review, but the hook doesn't make it clear that he wasn't an official candidate, didn't actually become governor, and only a few people actually voted for him. The wording of the hook could probably be changed to reflect that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I think that's fine -- write-in candidates are common in American elections -- and that adding it would make the hook weaker (in my forming hook-typology, take it from a "visionary" to a "juxtaposition"). More problematic is that this is now more than a week overdue for QPQ, as are a couple other noms. Vaticidalprophet 04:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
    • It's been a week already? Sorry about that...I've been overloaded with qpqs to do and had extensive work to deal with in real life recently (not to mention I dislike doing them :D) - but I'll try to get some done today. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
      • QPQ done. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @BeanieFan11: Good article. Though i feel like the hook would be better if you mentioned that he didn't run for the election yet still got votes. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Onegreatjoke: Something like this, maybe?: ... that Paul Roach became so popular for coaching the Wyoming Cowboys football team that people voted for him to be the state's governor when he wasn't a candidate? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hook is good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)