Jump to content

Talk:Aaron Hernandez/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 14:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'm going to take a look at this. As a long and gritty subject, it will probably take me a few days. Initial thoughts are that the referencing generally looks very good, but three of the sources are to potentially unreliable sources; can you try and replace them:

  1. Ref #5 ("Judge rules jury can see tattoos that may link killer ex-NFL star Hernandez to double murder". RT International. January 20, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2017.)
  2. Ref #86 (Price, Greg (June 26, 2013). "NFL Player Charged With Murder: Who Is Suspect Aaron Hernandez? Former New England Patriot Appears In Court, Pleads Not Guilty". International Business Times. Retrieved April 25, 2017.)
  3. Ref #138 (Barrabi, Thomas (June 27, 2013). "Aaron Hernandez Girlfriend: Will Shayanna Jenkins Testify In Odin Lloyd Murder Investigation?". International Business Times. Retrieved June 29, 2013.)

A couple of other minor referencing notes:

  • Ref #8 needs an accessdate.
  • Ref #11 is formatted very differently to the other references. (And given this is here, Pro-Football-Reference needs to be removed from the External links.)
  • Ref #13 needs an accessdate.
  • Ref #33 needs tidying to include full citation details.
  • Ref #76 needs an accessdate.
  • Ref #141 needs tidying to include full citation details.
  • Ref #145 needs a publication date.
  • Ref #147 needs author details and a publication date.
  • Ref #148, change "bostonherald.com" to "Boston Herald" to make other references.
  • Ref #149, make it clear that "www.bu.edu" is Boston University.
  • Ref #154 needs an accessdate.
  • Be consistent in how "Pro-Football-Reference" is capitalised, it varies throughout.

Overall, a lot of the references are inconsistent and missing key details. I have highlighted some of them, but I have not checked them all, just a sample near the start and end. Please go through each one and check that it is complete, and not missing any information. Harrias talk 14:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, Thanks for taking a look at this. I have gone through each of the references, one by one. It's possible I missed something, but they should be much improved now. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this review gets into article setup, please keep this RfC in mind. For reasons previously stated, I personally don't think that this article is close to GA status, but I'm not going to be heavily involved in this review. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why do you consider International Business Times a potentially unreliable source? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Frozen: Answer: The details are listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Harrias talk 13:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, I'd been aware of that supplement page and of sources like the Daily Mail being considered generally unreliable by Wikipedia, but I wasn't aware of the consensus on International Business Times. I appreciate you pointing this out. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, Have you had a chance to look at this again? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eugh, sorry. Spinning too many plates on- and off-wiki, and lost track. Will aim to look through it tomorrow. Harrias talk 18:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So is it a fail then? What was the outcome? Matthewishere0 (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

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

Overall, I'm concerned about the quality of the prose throughout this article. The subject matter is inherently interesting, but I find the choppy, back-and-forth nature of the article prevents it from being as engaging as it should be. In fact, I've found it quite a struggle to get through. I was tempted to simply fail the article, but I've been reviewing quite a few FAs lately, so it is possible that I am expected too much from a GA. That said, I do think that significant work is needed to improve the prose. In general, the Professional career is much better written, but when getting into the off-field nitty gritty, the article often struggles to connect facts together to provide context; rather, it often feels like a series of facts are thrown at the reader, who is then expected to put them together to draw a conclusion. I have not provided a detailed review for the whole article, I think it has inherent issues that need to be sorted before too much detailed work; I'll place it on hold for the time being. If you feel that I am off the mark, I would not be offended by a request for a second opinion, as I say, I have found the article tough work, and that might just be me. Harrias talk 10:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • The prose is difficult to follow in places; the narrative jumps around sometimes, and short, choppy sentences and paragraphs break up the flow of the narrative. The Early life section suffers from this; I feel that breaking it up in four sub-sections makes it harder to follow, rather than easier.
    • Per the MOS, do not use 6'2" for his height; use 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m)
    • "He later said that he was high on drugs every time he took the field." Provide some context to this; was this just because he was addicted, or because he felt he needed the drugs to deal with the high workload?
    • After that statement, drugs aren't mentioned again for two paragraphs, when we are then told "Meyer had wanted to throw Hernandez off the team for his chronic marijuana use.." When was this, do we know? It feels odd having the two related facts given so far apart. Again, more context and better flow could be achieved.
    • "Florida coaches aligned Hernandez with Maurkice and Mike Pouncey." What does this mean?
    • Be careful to use italics in the prose if a source uses them in the references. Bleacher Report is one such example.
    • "Despite his being considered.." This might be an ENGVAR thing, but "his" seems superfluous here.
    • Multiple times, the article uses the construction: "one reception for 45-yards" or similar. I don't think that "45-yards" should be hyphenated here.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    • Some sources are still missing parameters such as retrieval date, as mentioned above.
    • There are too many similarities to some of the references:
      • "told Hernandez that they believed he had the potential to play in the National Football League (NFL)" / "told Hernandez how much they loved his talent and his potential to play in the NFL."
      • "Meyer had wanted to throw Hernandez off the team for his chronic marijuana use, but relented after an appeal from Tebow." / "..was a chronic marijuana smoker. Meyer had tried to throw Hernandez off the team but relented under pressure from Tebow."
      • "bowling, theater appreciation, wildlife issues, and a course entitled "plants, gardening and you."" / "bowling, theater appreciation, wildlife issues, and “plants, gardening and you.”"
      • "Hernandez received the lowest possible score in "social maturity"" / "Hernandez received the lowest possible score in the category of “social maturity.”"
      • "Hernandez was transferred to the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, a maximum security prison" / "Hernandez would be transferred to Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, a maximum security prison"
      • "Hernandez was disciplined dozens of times" / "Hernandez was disciplined dozens of times"
    • These are just some of the examples from the first couple of sources I have checked, and it's a worrying trend. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is worth a read or re-read. Harrias talk 10:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  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:

@Slugger O'Toole: How are things going with this? Harrias talk 10:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, Like you, I have a lot going on both on- and off-wiki these days. I had hoped that this process would spur other interested editors to help improve the article, but that has not happened. Since I can't commit to giving it the time it needs by myself, you should probably just fail it. Thanks for the effort, and if I have time to come back to it I will use your review as a guide. Thanks, and I am sorry. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; life happens. If you do come back and work on it, feel free to ping me if you want me to take another look over it at any point. Harrias talk 19:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Hernandez/GA1&oldid=957423991"