Talk:1928 Florida Gators football team/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 21:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Grabbing this for a review. Probably tomorrow now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- No duplicate links present.
- Images: The team shot in the infobox image - have you got anyway to check to see if the copyright has expired? You've got other shots from later editions of the same publication as free use on this basis.
- The only other thing about the images is that you should try to use a caption that isn't just the person's name and date
- Before the season: Is there any background that could be added to expand on Bachman's experience prior to taking up the job?
- Florida Southern: Stick a convert template in for the 98 pounds mention, probably to kgs.
- Might be better to specify in the text that all the points came in the third quarter
- North Carolina: End of the first paragraph needs a cite
- Sewanee: Same, end of the first paragraph needs a cite
- Georgia: Cite needed at the end of the first paragraph and at the end of the second paragraph
- Link fumble
- Clemson: "Florida effectively used both the run and the pass" I'd move the "effectively" after "used both the run and pass" to improve the flow of that sentence
- "Bethea's work reminding one writer of Red Grange" - can we say which writer/publication in the prose?
- I'd move the details of the Clemson touchdown pass up to where you say they took the lead. That way it keeps all nice and chronological
- Tennessee: Link Knoxville, Tennessee in the prose too
- I'd drop the "mythical" per WP:FLOWERY
- Likewise re-write the "came out with a vengeance" per WP:IDIOM
- "Some sources claim it was blocked." - can we say which sources?
- Departing seniors: Second paragraph needs to be cited
- I'd move the quote about the Rose Bowl up to the mention of the Rose Bowl in the Tennessee section as it seems out of place in a section about the seniors.
- Cite #7: Needs to be fully filled out
- Cite #19: Needs to be fully filled out - I recommend worldcat.org for finding out publisher details etc for books. You can always format it the same as the two book sources in the Bibliography as well if you'd prefer. I don't mind as long as everything is formatted the same way.
- Cite #32: Same as 19
- Cite #44: Same as #7
- Cite #46: Same as #7
- That's the lot for this one. Placing it on hold for the seven days - ping me if you have any questions/have had a change to look at these or need more time. Miyagawa (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Miyagawa: I think I managed to cover them all. On the infobox image, Cbl62 seems most trustworthy (the one who gave the free use basis on those other images), and a search of the copyright records reveals no hits for "Seminole", so I've changed its status accordingly. Cake (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Non-reviewer comment: I feel a little uncomfortable with the non-free images. We already have (a free) image in the infobox to identify the whole team, so why do we need separate non-free images to identify the backfield, let alone individual players. This is not good in terms of WP:NFCC#3 (minimal use), and generally speaking there is no compelling need (WP:NFCC#8, contextual significance) to identify individuals in articles that are not exclusively about them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Understandable and thanks for the interest. As one can see from the above comment left by Dirtlawyer, one relished finding a backfield image. The "Phantom Four" backfield and the scoring it produced are the most significant features of the team. I would be reluctant to see that one go. Not to mention, it would not surprise me if the image were free use anyway, I just tend to use fair use when it's after 1923. The image of Crabtree, say, is in the yearbook (much too blurry and small online, hence the paper clipping), so if the infobox image is free use then so is it. Cake (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- The only remaining fair use image in the article now is that one of Dale Van Sickel, which came from photobucket and the original source information isn't listed. I think it'd be fine on an article on the individual if no other images existed, but for this article, it's not needed. So unless the original source can be found and the copyright renewal wasn't completed, then it'll need to go I'm afraid. Miyagawa (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I could not find its source aside from being a 1929ish press photo, and so maybe out there in the aether is a copyright for it. It is nice to have him in his jersey and in a stance of course, but with having another shot of him I removed it from all except his own article. For what it is worth, it is quite a commonly used press shot of Van Sickel, found on sports cards, etc. Cake (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly if you can find out the original source later and can confirm that the copyright isn't renewed, then of course do please add it back again. But for now, I'm happy for this to be promoted to GA. Miyagawa (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I could not find its source aside from being a 1929ish press photo, and so maybe out there in the aether is a copyright for it. It is nice to have him in his jersey and in a stance of course, but with having another shot of him I removed it from all except his own article. For what it is worth, it is quite a commonly used press shot of Van Sickel, found on sports cards, etc. Cake (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- The only remaining fair use image in the article now is that one of Dale Van Sickel, which came from photobucket and the original source information isn't listed. I think it'd be fine on an article on the individual if no other images existed, but for this article, it's not needed. So unless the original source can be found and the copyright renewal wasn't completed, then it'll need to go I'm afraid. Miyagawa (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Understandable and thanks for the interest. As one can see from the above comment left by Dirtlawyer, one relished finding a backfield image. The "Phantom Four" backfield and the scoring it produced are the most significant features of the team. I would be reluctant to see that one go. Not to mention, it would not surprise me if the image were free use anyway, I just tend to use fair use when it's after 1923. The image of Crabtree, say, is in the yearbook (much too blurry and small online, hence the paper clipping), so if the infobox image is free use then so is it. Cake (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Non-reviewer comment: I feel a little uncomfortable with the non-free images. We already have (a free) image in the infobox to identify the whole team, so why do we need separate non-free images to identify the backfield, let alone individual players. This is not good in terms of WP:NFCC#3 (minimal use), and generally speaking there is no compelling need (WP:NFCC#8, contextual significance) to identify individuals in articles that are not exclusively about them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)