Jump to content

Talk:Lou Rymkus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLou Rymkus has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 4, 2013Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lou Rymkus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 22:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC) I'm getting pretty good at reviewing your articles :). This is number four, by my count. I will take a look in a few hours, but am on my way out now. Go Phightins! 22:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always, for the excellent reviews. --Batard0 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought for fun I'd format this review a little differently than in the past, hope you don't mind.

Well written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, 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.

Thoughts:
  • I love the lead, it does a really nice job summarizing the article.
  • The writing style is terrific for the most part. This sentence: Playing alongside quarterback Sammy Baugh, Rymkus returned a blocked punt and an interception for a touchdown in two straight games. seems as if it could be worded more clearly. It's hard to tell if he blocked a punt and had a pick 6 in two straight games or if he blocked a punt in one and returned a pick in the other.
    • Agreed -- it is a bit vague. I changed it to reflect the source, which says he had a blocked punt returned for a touchdown in one game and a returned interception in the next. --Batard0 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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

Thoughts:
  • Ref #2 gives me an error when I try to access the archived version. Look to shore up that section with additional reliable sources.
  • As eluded to in the last comment, I'd like more than one source in the early life section.

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). Outstanding job here.

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

  • I think it does a reasonably good job staying neutral. The mention of the arrest lends weight to the negative and some of the quotes, especially the one from Brown, shed him in a positive light. The remainder of the article is neutral.

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

  • Check.

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.

  • There's the one image. I think that's sufficient.

Other thoughts:

  • The Daley mention seems pretty trivial.
  • I think that per the Manual of style, you're supposed to say USD instead of $ at least the first time. Also, I'd appreciate if you could show where you get your conversions to today. If nothing else, I could use it. (OK, that's a side reason for why I'd like to see it, but knowing the conversion estimate model would be helpful, I think.)
    • There's an exception to this at WP:$ -- we can use the abbreviation on first reference if the topic is entirely US-related, which I think is the case here: "The exception to this is in articles related entirely to EU-, UK- or US-related topics, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened (€26, £22 or $34 respectively), unless this would be unclear." The conversions use an inflation template that is adjusted according to changes in the CPI so we don't have to worry about it. It also uses a currentyear template that automatically adjusts when years change. The syntax (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|2000|1943}}}} in {{currentyear}} dollars) produces ($35,215 in 2024 dollars). --Batard0 (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like to think that I have a pretty solid vocabulary, but even I had to look up "burnish"; judging by its definition and the context, would "solidified" or "improved" work?
  • The reference to A League of Their Own, though a great movie that I should really consider watching again, seems rather trivial.
  • If there's anything else you can do to expand the Later life and death section, I would do it, as that's only three lines which is to cover 28 years of his life (1970 when he had his last coaching job to 1998 when he died). This isn't a major concern, just something to nit-pick with since as always your article is pretty much there by the time I start reviewing it. Go Phightins! 05:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some initial thoughts, haven't finished reading the article yet, but those are my thoughts through the lead, first section, and first half of the second section. Go Phightins! 19:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize this is taking me so long. Something came up in real life, I'll try to get to this tomorrow. Go Phightins! 03:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's this review coming? Been a month since any changes. Wizardman 04:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd finished this one, but apparently not...I took on three at one time (a mistake I'll never make again) and have gotten them all confused. I'll try to get back in to this one soon. Sorry, and thanks for making an edit to the page so it popped up on my watchlist. From here on out, I'm going to keep it to one GA review at a time. Go Phightins! 04:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of review...sorry for the delay

[edit]
College and professional career
Coaching career
Later life and death
  • Is there any way we could expand this even if just by a line or two? It concerns me that the last thirty years of his life isn't getting due weight.
    • I'm going to try to find some material on this. There should be more to add. This was the tail end of his life when he was out of football, so there's probably not going to be a ton of coverage out there. --Batard0 (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked back through the obits and other material and haven't been able to find any additional info on his later life. There are a couple minor articles (assortments of notes about sports in the Cleveland Plain Dealer) that merely mention that he had a job with the Astros and was selling cars in Houston. They don't go further than that. I agree that it'd be great to have more on his later life, but in the absence of sources that discuss it it's hard to say what to do. --Batard0 (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but those are my final concerns. Thanks again to Wizardman for reminding me of this. Merry Christmas. Go Phightins! 03:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said I was going to close this. And then I forgot. Sorry. Go Phightins! 00:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lou_Rymkus&oldid=1210160580"