Talk:Montreal Expos/GA1

GA Review

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

While it is obvious that a lot of work has been put into this article, I am compelled to fail this GA nomination, as there are numerous major MOS and referencing issues with the article at present.

Per WP:WIAGA:

The lead is insufficient. It should essentially be a self-contained "mini article" that touches on as many topics as are contained in the article body as reasonable. For example, see baseball FA Nashville Sounds and GA Calgary Cannons. Given the greater history, I would think the Expos lead would be larger than those.
Several sections are entirely unreferenced. Notably: Creation of the franchise, The early years (also note: section titles should not begin with "the")
The entire 1980s are reduced to a half dozen sentences, and commentary regarding their lone playoff appearance is virtually absent. Note that the five year period of 1989-1994 is twice as long, as is the final season section. Far too much recentism for an organization that existed for 35 years.
There are dozens of statements beginning with "on date x, y occurred". This is very poor prose quality. It should flow in logical paragraphs, not several disjointed point form comparisons.
The Historic games section is completely unreferenced, features numerous events that I would not label as historic, and again is point form. I personally would like to see this section integrated into the main history section.
I would also like to see "Longest home runs" and "No hitters" integrated into the history.
"Championships" is a poor section. The succession box should simply be at the end of the article with the templates, not in the middle of the body.
Why is there a long list of broadcasters, but almost no commentary on players? I loved listening to Dave Van Horne call Expos games, but in the grand scheme of things, the broadcasters are trivial.

Among the more minor issues, dashes should not be used to represent scores, records, etc. Endashes should be used instead. It should be 4–1, 99–66 rather than 4-1, 99-66, etc.

At this point, I would recommend finding some good books on the Expos and building a fully referenced history section, as I see that as the most significant stumbling block, followed by the lead section. It is an informative article, however, just not quite at GA standards. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Reso lute 06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]