Talk:Brian Urlacher/GA1

Brian Urlacher GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

The prose is OK, not great. A tendency to use peacock terms and cliche 5/10.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Referencing is fine, but the format of the references is not. Please see the citation guide below on how to improve this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

Not up to date, please bring this up to date on events in the last year. On the other hand, in the future I am going to use the personal life section here as an example of how they should be done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem will hinder a GA reassessment. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly, this is something that a reviewer should have insisted you do before promoting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can step in on this one, the changes are basic things. As for current information, not much notable stuff has happend since the bears went to the super bowl. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has happened in the last 18 months? I know nothing about American football, but I'm sure that there is at least one season a year?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there was a season of course, but nothing notable came out of it. It was a bad year, I guess an extra sentance or two could be added though. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and formatted most of the remaining references. As for the 2007 season - It is addressed in the final two lines of the "2005-present" section. In terms of long term improvement, I have been working on a better draft for the article, here. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your draft. As for this version, I haev looked again at the section in question, and you are correct. However it is a little confusing to someone not intimately familiar with American football, so please change "following season" to "2007-08 season" (or whatever the official name is) to make it clear which year is under discussion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll correct the the issue immediately. Are there any other specific problems with the article (albeit the peacockk terms?) -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me a while to come back to this, I've been busy. Well done on the improvements.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]