Talk:Fair catch kick/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Will begin review later.--Dom497 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   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. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

   No pictures used

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

   No pictures used

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "...it would be more advantageous to try and score a touchdown unless there is little to no time left in the half." - These doesn't really support a neutral point of view. According to the reference, this is what some one is saying/thinks; so this comes from a one person perspective.--Dom497 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Good catch; I have noted the comment's originator, Art McNally. Toa Nidhiki05 20:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • IMO, its still showing a person perspective. All you really did was add the name who said it. Someone else can say the opposite. I'll ask for a second opinion.--Dom497 (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Sure, but I would argue the person in question (a former NFL director of officiating for over two decades, as noted on the article), is well-qualified to make statements like that. I could modify it slightly to make it clearer he said it, however. Toa Nidhiki05 17:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
        • You know what, its fine as is.--Dom497 (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Though its not really required for GA, I would suggest putting a legend at the top of the first table mentioning what green and red mean.--Dom497 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Done; I have also added symbols to help meet WP:ACCESS. Toa Nidhiki05 20:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't the publisher for ref 46 ESPN? This ref also follows a different format for the access date so I suggest you fix it to keep it consistent with the other refs.--Dom497 (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 20:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Some refs are missing access dates (Books don't need them as far as I know but some of the LA times and other news papers need them).--Dom497 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have added access dates to all newspaper citations. Toa Nidhiki05 20:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just one last comment. There should be some prose in the section that has the lists (such as just a quick explanation on what the tables mean and the fact that 4 out of 26 are good and none have ever scored points in exhibition games).--Dom497 (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have given a concise explanation now; unless there is more information needed, it should be complete there. Toa Nidhiki05 03:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Good work; all comments addressed.--Dom497 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)