Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs) 18:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSED

New GA2 review has been opened; please place any additional comments at Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA2.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I will review this article, and provide my Good Article review comments over the next several days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review checklist

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

GA review comments

1. Footnote links: Please double-check that all footnote links are currently working, and update retrieval dates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Footnote stylistic consistency: Please conform all footnotes to a single, consistent style, including a single format for publication and retrieval dates. It is not required to use Wikipedia cite templates, but all footnotes of a particular type (e.g., newspapers, magazines, hard-copy publications, websites, etc.) should follow a consistent format. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. All factual statements in the "History" section should be sourced to reliable sources presented as in-line footnotes. Currently, most of the text is unsourced and unverified. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[more comments to follow]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed #2, at least as far as dates are concerned. I'm working on #1, but it will take some time to go through all those links. I'll also find some sources for #3. Dolenath (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolenath: Where are we with this? Can you provide an update? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally finished #1. So now all that's left is #3. I'll work on that tonight. You might check #2 to make sure I got them all.Dolenath (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Good -- thanks for the update. We're getting all of the repetitive drudge work out of the way. Do you have any help -- do you want some? If I weren't the reviewer, I would jump in, but speaking as a long-time WP:CFB member, someone might object to the reviewer doing the rewrite and say that I'm a little too close to the subject. If you want or need help with the sources and footnoting, ask at the WP:CFB talk page. Then we can focus on the text and other details outlined above. Time for your reviewer to get serious. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other active editors on the page, but I think they mainly work during the football season. I've started updating the History section. Dolenath (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the History section now and let me know what you think, @Dirtlawyer1:. Dolenath (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I'll start critiquing the text next -- that task is always easier when I understand what is supported by the footnoted sources. Also, please see if you can find two or three high-resolution free-image photos you can use to illustrate the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about pictures before, but I'm not sure what I would put a picture of on this article. I guess we could put pictures of the trophies? But to me those seem more appropriate on the individual trophy pages. What do you think? Dolenath (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we could find some free-image photos of old-time teams and players from the 1920s and 1930s, but we should probably focus on the text first. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: OK, I've added some pictures. Take a look and see what you think.Dolenath (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1 and Dolenath: How's this review coming? Doesn't appear any progress has been made in almost a month.--Dom497 (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just waiting on @Dirtlawyer1: to tell us what else needs to be done. Dolenath (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: Do you intend to continue this review? I couldn't help but notice that it's almost been three months since you last commented on it, yet you're still quite active elsewhere on Wikipedia. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sir. Working on comments now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

This nomination is being put back into the GAN reviewing pool. The review is now over 135 days old, the oldest by nearly two months, and the current reviewer has not posted any new review material to the review page since May 8, despite several reminders on Dirtlawyer1's talk page and here, and assertions that he would "be back on the case" that day (July 6), was "on it" (July 17), and was "working on comments now" (July 24). In fact, 1300 edits have been made on Wikipedia by the reviewer since that July 6 talk-page statement, but none of them have continued this review or another incomplete one, for Talk:Vratislav Lokvenc/GA1, now 75 days old.

It is extremely unfair for a nominator to have to wait four and a half months once the review has been opened, and it's made worse when you consider that the nomination was submitted over ten months old, the oldest extant nomination by over three months. With the GA Cup about to start its second round, it is likely to be picked up by a new reviewer in a matter of days, and finished with reasonable dispatch. As I pointed out on Dirtlawyer1's talk page earlier this week, the Good Article instructions page says, Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. This commitment has not been met here, and it's time to find a new reviewer who will meet it. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.