Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 19:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Will review, give me an hour or so. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused (see summary style):
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
[edit]- I'm not a football person but wasn't there a playoff system that lead to the championship a few years ago? Was that not sanctioned? If so, then this sentence is out of date: "Division I FBS football is the only NCAA sport for which the NCAA does not sanction a yearly championship event." Otherwise I'm wrong and it can stay.
- "The two polls also disagreed in 1957, 1965, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1990, 1991, 1997, and 2003." I'm not sure this is entirely necessary. Maybe just "The two polls have disagreed ten times since then, most recently in 2003."
- "The AP and Coaches' polls remain the major rankings to this day." I feel like this needs a citation.
- "famous for its use of math" What does that mean? It may need clarifying.
- The amount of tables in this article is concerning, particularly since some of them have their own articles. The worst offender is "Yearly national championship selections from major selectors" which has over 100 entries and would probably be better suited as a stand-alone list in itself. Very serious consideration needs to be given to what tables are truly necessary and which can be stated in prose or removed all together.
- On that note, while this is not covered by the GA criteria, it may be beneficial to split the article into multiple pages: an article on the ways champions are selected (this one), and a lists of national champions (all the various lists here, including by year, and title claims and the like). That being said, I can't and won't fail the article if the article isn't split, but I'll need a very compelling reason as to why some of the tables can't be incorporated as prose.
- Hello, thanks for taking up this review. On 1) The 2014-2015 season was the first season with a playoff, but it is not sanctioned/managed by the NCAA like the Division II & III championships are. A private consortium, the "College Football Playoff" runs the NCAA FBS playoffs. The NCAA still does not officially recognize a winner like it does with other divisions. I'll take a look at rewording (2)-(4) and I'll see if I can get some of the other editors to respond to (5). Dolenath (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree strongly with suggestion 5. Foremost, replacing the tables with prose essentially creates a new point of view of the content of those tables, which is why the tables were created in the first place: to present an unbiased, nearly complete compilation of the dozens of points of view on the topic over nearly 150 years of history. Truly understanding the topic requires an appreciation for the complexity and large number of differing interpretations presented in all of the tables, and eliminating editor bias of each interpretation's legitimacy means that the presentation of these tables should be on as equal footing as possible, which is best done if they remain together. Breaking the tables out and summarizing them would risk, even if unintentional, the introduction new interpretation and bias, particularly considering the well known failure of readers to clickthrough to breakout articles. Having them together in one article encourages, if not forces, the reader to consider multiple interpretations (selectors', schools', third parties', etc) allowing the ultimate determination of the value of each particular interpretation to rest with the reader. Beyond that, I would also submit that most valuable part of the article to readers is the complete and thorough presentation of existing data on the subject (found few other place, if any) and the tables are the original heart and purpose of the article. On the contrary, there should be a very compelling reason to separate them other than just "they're big tables." CrazyPaco (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- The compelling reasons are WP:USEPROSE and WP:NOTSTATS. From WP:USEPROSE: "Wikipedia differentiates between articles that consist primarily of lists (and are termed "lists" or "stand alone lists") and articles that consist primarily of prose (and are termed "articles"). Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose" and from WP:NOTSTATS: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. [Where exhaustive statistics are not necessary] omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely."
- At the end of the day, this is a review for good articles not good tables, and the fact that over half the column inches of this page are tables seems antithetical to "[consisting] primarily of prose". Further, if the "most valuable part of the article to readers is the complete and thorough presentation of existing data on the subject" as you said, then is the focus of this article prose or tables? If the tables are the most valuable part here, why are they not their own dedicated list?
- I'm not saying that all tables need to go, but that I literally cannot pass this article if it's more about tables than prose (see 1b). The tables don't have to be split—the article can do tons of things to comply with WP:USEPROSE—but if it doesn't comply with WP:USEPROSE I cannot pass this. Wugapodes (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree strongly with suggestion 5. Foremost, replacing the tables with prose essentially creates a new point of view of the content of those tables, which is why the tables were created in the first place: to present an unbiased, nearly complete compilation of the dozens of points of view on the topic over nearly 150 years of history. Truly understanding the topic requires an appreciation for the complexity and large number of differing interpretations presented in all of the tables, and eliminating editor bias of each interpretation's legitimacy means that the presentation of these tables should be on as equal footing as possible, which is best done if they remain together. Breaking the tables out and summarizing them would risk, even if unintentional, the introduction new interpretation and bias, particularly considering the well known failure of readers to clickthrough to breakout articles. Having them together in one article encourages, if not forces, the reader to consider multiple interpretations (selectors', schools', third parties', etc) allowing the ultimate determination of the value of each particular interpretation to rest with the reader. Beyond that, I would also submit that most valuable part of the article to readers is the complete and thorough presentation of existing data on the subject (found few other place, if any) and the tables are the original heart and purpose of the article. On the contrary, there should be a very compelling reason to separate them other than just "they're big tables." CrazyPaco (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for taking up this review. On 1) The 2014-2015 season was the first season with a playoff, but it is not sanctioned/managed by the NCAA like the Division II & III championships are. A private consortium, the "College Football Playoff" runs the NCAA FBS playoffs. The NCAA still does not officially recognize a winner like it does with other divisions. I'll take a look at rewording (2)-(4) and I'll see if I can get some of the other editors to respond to (5). Dolenath (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Results
[edit]On Hold for 7 days pending changes. Wugapodes (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hold extended for 3 days until 13 August 2015 as neither contributor has been active since responding. Wugapodes (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not Listed I had reservations about putting this article on hold in the first place since the last could have involved a serious rewrite. Neither the nom nor the other contributor has come back since their initial comments, and even with a second hold extension I doubt that the article will be able to be brought up to GA level within that second extension. As such, I'm going to close it as not listed, and recommend the editors address these problems, particularly WP:USEPROSE and renominate when the article is more in line with the GA criteria. Wugapodes (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- For future reference, it should be noted that my fellow editors and I strongly disagree with this reviewer's notion that this article doesn't qualify as GA due to having too many tables. A prior GA reviewer had no such qualms, but wasn't able to finish the review due to other obligations. The reviewer's idea that 140-plus years of championship data would be better understood as prose is ludicrous. This article is trying to convey 4 things: 1) What does the NCAA say about FBS champions? 2) What do the schools themselves say about it? 3) What do college football researchers have to say about it? 4) What does the media have to say about it and 5) What do semi-official championship-granting organizations have to say about it? We believe the most succinct and intuitive format for the year-by-year answers to these questions is with tables. We hope future reviewers will consider this point of view. Dolenath (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Let's be clear here, I articulated my position 486 days ago, backed up by policy and the GA criteria as to why this series of tables is not a good article. You then proceed to ignore those arguments for over a year, come here and then fail to address any of them while chastising me and misrepresenting my points because some previous reviewer didn't follow the GA Criteria as closely as I did. Mind you, you made no attempt to even discuss with me how to interpret policy. No one did. I asked the following questions and received no response:
At the end of the day, this is a review for good articles not good tables, and the fact that over half the column inches of this page are tables seems antithetical to "[consisting] primarily of prose". Further, if the "most valuable part of the article to readers is the complete and thorough presentation of existing data on the subject" as you said, then is the focus of this article prose or tables? If the tables are the most valuable part here, why are they not their own dedicated list? I'm not saying that all tables need to go, but that I literally cannot pass this article if it's more about tables than prose (see 1b).
I waited 6 more days after that and still nothing and then closed it because no one responded to my concern. - None of this is to say that this is not of quality. It is. But it is fundamentally not a good article. I suggest you look into featured lists. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 07:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Let's be clear here, I articulated my position 486 days ago, backed up by policy and the GA criteria as to why this series of tables is not a good article. You then proceed to ignore those arguments for over a year, come here and then fail to address any of them while chastising me and misrepresenting my points because some previous reviewer didn't follow the GA Criteria as closely as I did. Mind you, you made no attempt to even discuss with me how to interpret policy. No one did. I asked the following questions and received no response:
- For future reference, it should be noted that my fellow editors and I strongly disagree with this reviewer's notion that this article doesn't qualify as GA due to having too many tables. A prior GA reviewer had no such qualms, but wasn't able to finish the review due to other obligations. The reviewer's idea that 140-plus years of championship data would be better understood as prose is ludicrous. This article is trying to convey 4 things: 1) What does the NCAA say about FBS champions? 2) What do the schools themselves say about it? 3) What do college football researchers have to say about it? 4) What does the media have to say about it and 5) What do semi-official championship-granting organizations have to say about it? We believe the most succinct and intuitive format for the year-by-year answers to these questions is with tables. We hope future reviewers will consider this point of view. Dolenath (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not Listed I had reservations about putting this article on hold in the first place since the last could have involved a serious rewrite. Neither the nom nor the other contributor has come back since their initial comments, and even with a second hold extension I doubt that the article will be able to be brought up to GA level within that second extension. As such, I'm going to close it as not listed, and recommend the editors address these problems, particularly WP:USEPROSE and renominate when the article is more in line with the GA criteria. Wugapodes (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)