Talk:Mark Sanchez/GA1

GA Review

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

GA Review

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

This article is clearly a fan page, I openly question the neutrality of those involved with the creation and upkeep of this page. There is no mention of anything negative about Mark Sanchez, including all the trouble he has been in. This is a slanted, incomplete, biased page.

I did not write the above statement it was on the GA1 page when I opened the review. H1nkles (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

Lead is ok, you probably don't need to wikilink Most Valuable Player but otherwise it's pretty succinct and comprehensive. H1nkles (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just to be safe, I'd like to keep the wikilink (I assume a person who may not speak English as a first language might come in and feel that its not clear). --Bobak (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding College career

• This sentence is poorly worded, "He did not play during his freshman year and redshirted and his work as the quarterback of USC's scout team earned Sanchez the Service Team Offensive Player of the Year Award." Please reword.

• Done (and strongly agreed), let me know what you think. --Bobak (talk)

• He redshirted his junior season as well? That would mean, according to the article that he redshirted all three of his years at USC, is that right?

• I think there might be some confusion, I double checked the usage and its correct: he was a "redshirt junior" (versus a junior). If it were written that he took a redshirt, or he reshirted his junior season, then there'd be the error. --Bobak (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The photo in the 2007 section is pretty small. When one clicks on it and expands it one can see what the photo is about, but in the body of the article it doesn't really add anything. Consider removing. H1nkles (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Removed that photo, it cleared up space for a new, better one that I'd been meaning to upload (it became a lot more relevant when it ended up being his final regular season game). --Bobak (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Personal

• This sentence is a little implausible, "their home was located where second base is now" How could they really know that? I'm not going to fail the article on that but it just seems incredible that anyone would know something like that.

• Just to be safe, I remove it. --Bobak (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Consider a different term for this statement, "predominantly black neighborhood", a little more PC I think. Same with this statement, "predominantly white neighborhood".

• This one is tricky, as it was from articles dealing with his racial identity and how it plays into his popularity (particularly the ¡VIVA SANCHEZ! article from ESPN). Should I just remove the adjectives and simply list the city/region names? I'm fine with that. --Bobak (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's a matter of preference, using african american and caucasian is fine or just pulling out reference to race altogether. H1nkles (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Gotcha, I'll make the change to African-American and Caucasian. --Bobak (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• You should cite this sentence, "His father remarried and raised them under firm discipline that called on them to be leaders and communicators."

• Fixed... although it came from the same source as the sentence that followed and I tend to combine cite usage until a new citation is used (a style used in some other disciplines). --Bobak (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• This sentence is fine until the fernandomania section, I don't see the relevance of that. "His rise to fame within the Mexican-American community was compared to that of boxer Oscar De La Hoya and baseball pitcher Fernando Valenzuela, along with the Fernandomania that surrounded his time with the Los Angeles Dodgers." Either remove or reword. H1nkles (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed, removed and instead used a more specific link on Fernando Valenzuela. --Bobak (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

• Reference 6 is dead please fix.

• Fixed: The LA Times played "swap the link/retitle the article" on me again. They're usually good about redirecting their links to the archive, but 1/10 don't make it, this was one but I found the renamed article. --Bobak (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well-formatted and credible sources.

Regarding overall review

• The article is good.
• Despite what is said above I think the article discusses the negative issues Sanchez has encountered along with his early struggles playing at USC.
• Please discuss Carroll's disappointment with Sanchez's decision to go pro, that has been widely covered and should be mentioned in the article.

• Done. --Bobak (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I can't yet pass it because of an uncited statement and the dead link mentioned above, along with some prose corrections that should be made. I'll hold the article for a week, let me know when you're done and I'll review it a final time. H1nkles (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Fixes have been implemented and I will pass it with pleasure, well done. H1nkles (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)