Talk:Pittsburgh Riverhounds SC/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 12:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I am a WIki Cup participant, I have my own GAN (CMLL World Tag Team Championship) and I also have a Feature Article (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my review but it would be appreciated.
I am about to start my review of this article, normally I provide my input in bits and pieces over a day or two so expect running updates for a while. MPJ-US 12:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
GA Toolbox
[edit]So getting the obvious out of the way first, I am checking everything in the GA Toolbox
- Peer Review
- Lead is too short, WP:Lead states that an article of this size should have about 3-4 paragraphs
- Captions - the info box image does not have a caption or an alt text
- The Gallery of fans has no captions nor alt texts
- The Gallery of stadiums has no captions nor alt texts
- Copyright Violations
- The tool list two possible violations at 47.6% and 46.8%
- The timeline table seems to take verbatim info from web.archive.org/web/20060529120112/http://www.riverhounds.com/history.html and web.archive.org/web/20020815194040/http://www.riverhounds.com/archives/timeline.htm I would say that you should reword those a little
- Disambig Links
- no problems
- External Links
- The following references are dead
- 13
- 5
- 45
- 48
- 46
- 55
- 99
- 118
- Probably dead
- 33
- 124
- 143
- Connection issues
- 9
- 50
- 103
- usopencup.com
- The following references changes url, consider updating the links to prevent link rot
- 28
- 32
- 31
- 35
- 57
- 58
- 68
- 79
- 114
- 123
- 134
- 133
- 136
- 167
- oursportscentral.com
This article is huge, there is really too much detail in the season sections since there are sub articles for those. I am putting this on hold until the 2013 through 2016 sections are cut down to a summary since they already have separate history articles. And I would suggest a similar approach to the last two sections of the history as well. I will leave it on hold for 7 days for the work on summarizing those sections to at least begin - not necessarily end in that point in time as long as work is going on.
@Gri3720: - Status: Hold for summarizing and addressing the reference link issues. I can pick up the review again if these issues get addressed. MPJ-US 13:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Gri3720: This has been on hold for 7 days with no sign of improvements being made on the article. I am going to fail the article, but at least you have a list of issues to work on if you feel like submitting it for GA again. MPJ-US 14:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)