Talk:2013 Chicago Bears season/GA1

GA Review

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

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

Checklist

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

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)

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)

   No, it's fine. I don't think every season article would need it. Zappa24Mati 03:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

10. Per MOS:BOLD: "Do not use boldface for emphasis in article text"

    Removed. Zappa24Mati 02:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Results

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)