Talk:2007 Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens football team/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Three of the five sections are merely lists. There is not enough prose in the article. Of the other two, one section is just two short sentences, and the final section, although more prose, is short, stubby sections, and not comprehensive enough. There is no flow to the prose. For what it's worth, there are no probelms with the current prose, but lots of changes will be needed anyway.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No problems here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Here's the main problem. The sections have no flow, and the article is clearly not comprehensive enough. The short sections do not flow together and do not put the article in context. Most of the game sections don't even mention the score. It's not clear how the team qualified for the championship game, how they played, etc, etc. I suggest looking at some other similar articles to help find out how to add far more details. Because of the paucity of details, it barely mentions what sport is being played, and to an outside reader not familiar with US football, it's full of jargon that will be meaningless.

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):

   No images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm afraid this is a fail. In my opinion the article is well-short of GA. Take a look at other club season articles across a range of sports and see they are much more comprehensive. As well as this, I would suggest getting a peer review or help from other experience good article writers before resubmitting a GA nomination. Brad78 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)