Talk:Chet Winters

Latest comment: 7 months ago by Vaticidalprophet in topic Did you know nomination

GA Review 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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Chet Winters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply


I'll review this one. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

  • I copyedited the article here, let me know if you have any issues.
  • The Newspaper.com links need to be fixed. I held off running the archive function until they are.
  • He had his only statistics in a week 12 loss to the Detroit Lions, having three kickoff returns for 28 yards. "statistics" sounds weird here. Maybe "touches"?
  • Touchdown is linked twice in the body of the article
  • Ref spot check: #4, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19

Looks good, putting on hold. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:52, 18 September 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.

Did you know nomination edit

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 09:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Chet Winters; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply

  •   The expansion is new enough and long enough (going from 162 characters to 2,709) and the article looks to be in pretty good condition overall, as it is well-cited and well-formatted in general. The problem lies in the hook fact, as it doesn't look to be accurate. Current ref 10 states that Winters "started at right halfback much of [his] time for the Sooners", while ref 11 says he was a blocking back for the star running backs Oklahoma had. What these references appear to be saying is that he wasn't really a backup, but was instead a starter who just didn't receive a lot of rushing attempts himself. That will need to be fixed in the article, and we're going to need a different hook. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  •   Looks reasonable enough to me. Spot-checks I performed on several sources showed no issues, and the hook seems to fall within guidelines, so this should be good to go now. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply