Talk:History of the Washington Commanders/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 13:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. Harrias ^talk 13:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Overall, a reasonable article which has clearly taken a lot of time to work on. It has some serious issues in terms of WP:RECENTISM and a thorough copy-edit would be worth doing to deal with prose issues.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The article would benefit from having more of a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in places, and there are lots of little prose issues that could do with work; "The city of Boston, was awarded.." shouldn't have a comma, there is a lot of unexplained jargon, "The next big addition that came in 1936, when Marshall hired" probably shouldn't have "that" in it, "Before leaving Boston, however, the Redskins made.." no need for "however" in that sentence. These little issues crop up again and again. The whole article could do with a thorough copy-edit.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The referencing is generally pretty good, but the date formats used are inconsistent, with some using "Month DD, YYYY" and the majority using "YYYY-MM-DD". There are also swathes of the article with no references; see the big gap between refs #108 and #109 or #119 and #120 for example.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article dedicates 49kB of prose text to the most recent 23 years (since 1994) in which they won no championships. In contrast, only 33kB are given to the first 59 years of the organisation, in which they won five championships. This is a clear issue of WP:RECENTISM; the most recent seasons go into too much detail; while a little bit more could be given to some of the earlier successful ones.

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Right now, this is a fair way off being promoted. I'll place the article on hold for a week, and after that depending on how much progress is being made, I will reevaluate. Harrias ^talk 10:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Nominator has been inactive since July. As this article has some serious layout issues and prose issues too, I am failing the nomination as this time. If anyone wants to take this article on and improve it, then feel free to ping me for an expedited GA review if you re-nominate it. Harrias ^talk 09:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)