Talk:Georgetown Hoyas/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'm reassessing this article on behalf of GA sweeps. Even on a skim I'm noticing several major issues:

• Ref #16 (Glory Days) is a deadlink, as is the first external link.
• All refs need to be filled out (titles, publishers, accessdates, etc.); no bare links.
• The sections "fight song", "men's basketball", and "men's rugby" are unreferenced.
• Men's basketball and rugby should be expanded, especially the latter since it's one sentence.
• Should be at least one ref per paragraph.

I'll give you five days to fix this. If taken care of I'll do a fuller review, if not it'll be delisted. Wizardman 19:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've realized for a while that the Good Article standards had risen far past the current status of this article. However, I'll fix these items so we can get a fuller review. I appreciate your comments on what the article wants for most.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 19:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Progress is decent so far. I'm tempting to just delist though just so that you guys have plenty of time to modify everything and can bring the article to GA when you're ready. If you'd rather keep it and work on it quickly, lemme know and I'll finish the review sometime quickly. Wizardman 04:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I think there are some philosophical decisions to be made about the article. Namely what role each individual sport plays. Do we need a section on every sport, just the big sports, or should this article be about what the sports have in common, like facilities, fight song, traditions, etc. I'm fairly comfortable with those commons things, but its six hodgepodge sports sections that need the most work. The second most popular sport there, that being their men's lacrosse, isn't even currently mentioned on the page. I'll have to see what other schools have done. Sorry to do this again, but let me get back to you.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 04:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine; I'm sure you know more about which particular sports should be mentioned than I do. Wizardman 04:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So my snooping around has found a few articles we can use as a possible basis for improvements here. Primarily, Michigan State Spartans, which seems like the only other article on a school athletics programs at GA level. Also, several specific sports, usually football programs such as Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football, have however made it to GA, but that doesn't give us a good template to use here.

Examples of good formatting and style I liked on non-GAs came from articles on Pittsburgh Panthers and maybe North Carolina Tar Heels. Sprawling ones I don't want copy include Connecticut Huskies, Michigan Wolverines, and Kentucky Wildcats. Anyone see other examples? Things I like about those articles include sections for Olympians, info on Scholar Athletes, and divisions between varsity and club sports.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've achieved the initial goal you set forth for us last month, of getting a reference for each paragraph, getting rid of the bare links, and making sections a more appropriate length. So if you wanted to give a fuller review under GAR, I think its ready for that. OR if you feel it needs to be demoted, that's alright too. However what I need to note is that I'm off for holiday's for a bit, so I won't be around to respond to issues for the next month, and I don't know if others will be around either. So Merry Christmas!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'll do a prose review sometime in early January, and will keep it on hold until January 31, which will be the final deadline. Wizardman 22:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, catch up with you then.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Final part of the review:

• Refs #41 and 42 went dead (figures, they were ones you just put in) as did the big east external link.
• There's one citation needed tag left to fill.

You have until January 30 to finish these two things, and I'll then make my final decision on the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything's been fixed and it looks good. The site for those above refs is being remodeled, so they'll be fine so long as they redirect when the remodeling is finished. It looks miles better than when this review started, and as such I can finally close this as a kept GA. Well done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)