Talk:Paul Des Jardien/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a travesty that one of your articles should have had to wait so long for a review Wizardman, particularly as there's probably little that needs doing to get it to GA status. I'll take care of this one, hopefully by the end of the weekend. Canadian Paul 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so, sorry about this, but I have been traveling abroad and thought that I would have much better internet than I did. I really do apologize. In any case, here is my review:

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A few points:

I did a slight change to the last quote under "University of Chicago", partially for flow, partially to make certain that we are not running afoul of WP:FAIRUSE with all the quotes, as well as a couple of minor fixes that you can see in the edit history.
The infobox image should have a caption under it to contextualize it, even if it's just something like "Paul Des Jardien c. 1914" or "Paul Des Jardien during his tenure with..."
I guess this technically isn't part of the GA criteria anymore, but I do find that paragraphs of less than three sentences tend to disrupt the flow of the article, particularly when they are in their own section, as is the case with the first paragraph under "Early years". Personally I don't see why the subsection header "University of Chicago" couldn't be deleted and the first two paragraphs combined (in fact, the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first second of the second paragraph are slightly redundant). I'd say the same about the first two paragraphs under "Professional football and World War I", and the last two paragraphs of the article as a whole (you could probably delete the "Later years" subsection and combine it under a section called "Professional football and later years", although I admit that it doesn't fit together perfectly). You could also combine any two of the last three paragraphs under "University of Chicago". Also, is there a reason to have his entire life under the big heading of "Biography"? There's not really any other sections to the article (except of course for references). Each level three section could probably just be its own level two section with "biography" removed entirely. Overall, I think it would flow better if a lot of these paragraphs were combined, like the first two of "Professional football and World War I", but these are not part of the GA criteria and are thus just suggestions/clarifications rather than mandatory tasks, even though the choppiness made it a bit difficult to read.
Under "University of Chicago", "In May 1914 he threw one of the first no-hitters". That phrasing seems kind of vague to me and "one of the first" is subjective (it could mean that the first two or three happened on the same day and his was one of them, that it was one of the first three, the fifth, etc. etc.), so unless the source goes into more specifics, I might just leave "one of the first" out.
Under "Professional football and World War I", second paragraph: "Parratt built a team of all-stars Des Jardien." Obviously a missing word here.
Same section, third paragraph: "The 1919 Hammond Pros also featured George Halas at wide receiver." I don't understanding the significance of this in Des Jardien's article. The team probably featured many players. Also, the following sentence "The team played most of their games in Chicago's Cub Park, now known as Wrigley Field" also seems a bit like filler and doesn't have much relevance to Des Jardien (for example, facts about the other teams he played for aren't mentioned).
Same section, fourth paragraph: "The signing of Des Jardien was expected to draw crowds from throughout the Midwest." This makes it sound like the signing itself was expected to draw crowds, when it was really Des Jardien's presence that was expected to do that (I think?).

I'll put this on hold. I know you know the drill. Canadian Paul 13:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All issues fixed. Thanks for the review! Wizardman 02:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, everything looks GA-ready now, so I'll be passing it. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Canadian Paul 11:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]