Talk:1960 Los Angeles Chargers season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 22:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this. I will leave feedback this week. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to catch a flight in the morning, but I wanted to at least start the review. I'll do this section-by-section. A few easy things to knock out: The article is stable and uses neutral tone overall. Earwig's tool returns nothing of concern. The sourcing looks okay but I'll check it more thoroughly. There are some areas where the writing isn't so clear, and that will likely represent a lot of my feedback.

Thanks - I've reworked the lead and corrected the other points.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Second wave of changes made.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Third set of changes made. I do have a habit of slipping into flowery language.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "... in the team's only season in Los Angeles until its 2017 return, with its home field at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum." - I think this sentence is trying to do too much. It reads like they played at Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum in 2017. Make two sentences out of this and I think it will be much more clear.

• I notice you talk about the AFL championship game, even giving the final score, and then you go back and discuss the home field advantage issue. This seems out of order to me. In general there is too much discussion of the AFL championship game (especially the home field stuff) in the lead - and almost nothing about the rest of the season.

• "Initially denied in December ..." - grammar issue in this sentence. Barron Hilton wasn't denied or announced. Try this: In December, owner Barron Hilton denied that he was planning to (and so on) ... However, In late January, he moved the team ..."

Formation

• "granted Barron Hilton a Los Angeles franchise" - granted a Los Angeles franchise to Barron Hilton
• no need for "fledgling" - already clear that they were new
• What was Klosterman's job title?

Coaching staff

• awkward dash before "Davis agreed" - How about a period after "choosing"?
• "In July of 1960, Frank Leahy resigned" --> In July 1960, Leahy resigned

This at least gets us started. I'll be back for more soon. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

First selections

• You have a couple of instances where the date format changed unexpectedly to ordinals (January 12th, June 23rd). Don't use ordinals per MOS:DATESNO.

Roster building

• "ten days before his game for USC" (in reference to Ron Mix) - I'm not sure the reader would understand what game is being referred to or why that's significant. The wording almost sounds like we're saying he played only one game for USC.

• "As well as a further opportunity to play Pro football, Kemp was also offered a job with ..." --> When Kemp was signed by the Chargers, he was also offered a job with ...

• last paragraph: 8 July --> July 8

Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Preseason

• "Paul Lowe gave Los Angeles an explosive start" - A sports blog might use such wording, but an encyclopedia should be more neutral.

• same issue: "dramatic finish"

Regular season

• Overview: "diabetic complications" - complications of diabetes

Week 1

• "first competitive game" - I think this is too vague - I think you are referring to the fact that it was the first regular season game

• "sacked on 4th and goal" - sacked on 4th down and goal; links to quarterback sack and Down (gridiron football) (if not linked earlier) might help with the jargon

• "stopped on downs" - can link turnover on downs here and pass interference in the same sentence

• "this time drawn by Dave Kocourek" - the grammar here sounds like Kocourek drew the drive rather than the PI call

Week 2

• "A dreadful start to the 3rd quarter spelled defeat" - dreadful is non-neutral, starts can't spell

• "out pattern" - link out route

• "Lowe compounded matters when he fumbled" --> Lowe fumbled

• remove "impressive" (NPOV)

Week 3

• "came back down to earth" - slang

• "lost the turnover battle" - makes it sound like this is part of a competition - just say how many turnovers each team had

• "One note of optimism" - the sources don't really support the notion of optimism

Week 4

• "Four interceptions saw Los Angeles" - personification

• "a feeble 159 yards" - no need to describe as feeble; already clear from the context provided by the sentence

• crossing pattern - consider linking crossing route (I wish that entry was in better shape)

• "threat was snuffed out" - jargon

Thanks for hanging in there with these short bursts of a review. I'll try to finish the review in the next round of feedback. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Week 6

• "swept left and wove through traffic" - a little too much jargon. Consider removing traffic and linking Sweep (American football).

Week 8

• "Los Angeles avenged their earlier thrashing by Boston" - NPOV

• "into the bargain" - unclear

• "Lowe burst through a hole in the line" - not encyclopedic

Week 9

• "Kemp went long on 3rd and 15" - slang

• Red zone (gridiron football) and bootleg play would be helpful if not already linked above

Week 11

• epitomised - epitomized in American English

• pick-six - jargon

Week 12

• Remove tragic (I'm sure the reader can feel the tragedy implicitly)

• tied the scores --> tied the score

• pass in the flat - jargon, a link may help

Week 13

• 82 yard --> 82 yards

• "bounced up invitingly" - maybe leave out invitingly

Week 14

• shootout - jargon

• stadia - I know it's in the dictionary, but it's awkward to pluralize an American football stadium this way

Week 15

• shootout, picked off - jargon

AFL Championship Game

• kept largely in check - jargon, but more than that, it's too vague to be meaningful

The game summaries will probably require the most attention to resolve. They are helpful summaries, but the writing style for an encyclopedia is just different than it would be for a sports magazine or even a newspaper.

Thanks for the work that has already gone into this. Once this stuff is addressed, I'll probably make one more pass through the entry, but I should be able to clean up any minor leftover issues myself. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - it's easy to slip into the standard newspaper game-report jargon, yes. I've gone through and hopefully covered the points you've raised so far.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the prompt attention to the feedback. I did some light copyediting, mostly just for encyclopedic tone. I did quite a few spot checks of the references, and the sourcing looks strong overall, without evidence of close paraphrasing. One last concern: I noticed a citation to exposure.co (currently ref #37; seems to be a web publishing platform) and a few citations to Tales from the American Football League (not sure if there is the editorial oversight for this to be considered an RS). There is an exception to WP:SPS for subject-matter experts, but I think these authors may fall short of the independent publication standard listed there, so it may be easiest to replace those sources. I also see at least two bare URLs in the reference list. Thanks for the work! Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again ... I've fixed the bare URLs, and replaced the exposure.co with an article from the Pro Football Hall of Fame website. Tales from the American Football League is the website of the author of Charging Through the AFL, a book of interviews with 1960s Chargers that I've cited in other places. The author has made several of the interviews available on his website - in those cases, I linked to the website, thinking that more accessible citations would be preferable. I can easily swap these for references to the book if need be, though?--Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Larry Hockett:I've also made a small addition to the Overview section, as unofficial sack stats are available via pro-football-reference.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. This completely slipped my mind. I appreciate your explanation of that web source. I'll make one more pass through the entry but should be able to fix any minor issues myself. I anticipate passing this shortly. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Thanks for an interesting read!

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The nominator did a good job reworking the lead section and some of the phrasing during the review.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No copyright concerns based on Earwig's tool and a Google search of selected phrases in the entry.

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:

   Non-neutral phrasing was significantly improved during the review process.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Image has valid Creative Commons license information.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Great work! Passing this. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)