Talk:Kyler Murray/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

• Evening standard and New York post aren't reliable sources. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Prose

General

• From a brief scan, the major issue is that we should have all the statistics tables in the same location. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Is the "Cardinals franchise records" particularly encylopedic? Feels very statcrufty. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• The "NFL career statistics" has an external link. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• The Cardinals finished 5-10-1; fourth place in the division. - source?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Is the recruiting star information usual for wikipedia articles? Seems pretty crufty. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• College football statistics has a few issues. Has a key that has things that don't appear in the table. Also, the colours used for the teams breaks MOS:COLOUR. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Per NCAA transfer rules, he had to miss the 2016 season - why? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Is there no other info on why Murray wanted to play football? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• The article goes from birth to how the person did college football - can we explain what the game is? The body should be readable without touching the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Quite a bit of MOS:BOLDAVOID issues specifically in templates. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

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:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a way to revoke the nomination? I have less free time now than the time that I nominated it and I am unable to complete the review. I am very sorry for wasting your time. Lucky7jrk (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• • • No issue. I'll close. The suggestions above will still be here to work on regardless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)