Talk:Ryan Van Bergen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 20:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have quite a few concerns on this article that I will need to have addressed before I would be willing to pass it as a Good Article:

• I would mention expicitly in the text that Shadow Ridge High School is in Las Vegas. Why did his family move from Vegas to Michigan?
  • Source does not provide a reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• The High school section feels rather scattered. I'd recommend moving the second paragraph to the end and move the sentence about the 40-yard dash time to the (new) second paragraph.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Van Bergen was originally a Lloyd Carr recruit." I would mention here that Lloyd Carr was the Michigan head coach at the time. Did the transition from Carr to Rich Rod change anything regarding Van Bergen's recruitment?
  • Done. No change to my knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• You should explain why Van Bergen redshirted his first year, and move the sentence "Following the 2008 season, Michigan had to replace three starting senior co-captain defensive linemen: Terrance Taylor, Tim Jamison and Will Johnson.[16]" to the next paragraph as it explains why he was starting every game the next year as a redshirt sophomore.
  • Can't figure out why he redshirted. No sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Why did Van Bergen switch positions, first from tight end to defense, and then from tackle to end and back? The article doesn't explain. I am guessing he moved to end in 2010 to replace Brandon Graham, but not sure about the 2011 decision to go back and forth.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess he had to choose between tight end and defense as most athletes play two-way in high school and one-way in college. Not sure about the end tackle stuff.
• Watch number usage; single-digit numbers should be spelled out per the MOS.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• I would mention in the infobox Michigan's upcoming appearance in the 2012 Sugar Bowl; I would figure it is highly likely that Van Bergen will play in that game?
  • I will update All Michigan players the day after the game.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• It's early, but is there any NFL buzz around Van Bergen? It would be nice to get a mention if he is seen as a draft prospect.
  • I don't know when NFL Combine invitations are announced. I will be watching for that for all Michigan players as well as the 2012 Senior Bowl and 2012 East–West Shrine Game. A lot of draft gurus are not really WP:RS and many other sources are behind paywalls. I will update as is relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Van Bergen is known as a media favorite." I think that sentence needs more support that the current reference, which is just one reporter's opinion that he has been a media favorite this past year.
  • I have made it clear that this is only one source's opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• "At the time of his induction into the Michicagn High School Football Association Coaches Hall of Fame, he thanked several members of his extended family including his grandparents Cliff and Gloria Verschueren and Al and Doris Van Bergen." Why was he inducted into the Coaches Hall of Fame? This seems strange.
  • I believe it is a state HOF with selections of players by the coaches, not selections of coaches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• The Personal paragraph could in general use a copyedit because currently it flows in many directions; I'll take a stab at it once the other concerns are addressed.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This review is placed on hold for a minimum of seven days to allow for the above concerns to be addressed.

Thanks. –Grondemar 20:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for addressing my concerns; I conducted the copyedit mentioned above. I am now passing this article as a Good Article. Congratulations! –Grondemar 07:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)