Talk:Terry Bradshaw/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a large number of issues that need to be addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

The prose is poor, with stubby single line paragraphs and then large undivided blockas of text. Lots of peacock terms, cliche and poor writing. Article needs an overhaul to come up to standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Sourcing is very bad. Article's sourcing needs serious work both in citation of statements and wider use of reliable sources. What sources there are are presented in an incorrect manner.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

It is hard to tell if this article is complete, due to poor writing and sourcing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

Too many peacock terms, not enough sources to make me comfortable agreeing with either of these.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

At least one image is suspicious.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If someone is willing to commit to making a serious effort to improve this article, let me know here or on my talk page in that time period. I will then go through the article with that person and make a detailed list of specific improvements to be worked on. If no one comes forward, the article will be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again and if anyone takes serious exception to my review then please address it at WP:GAR. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced, no one taking responsibility, no longer a GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment; I think that this article needs to be tagged for neutrality and it needs many citations added. For example: A tough competitor, Bradshaw had a powerful – albeit at times erratic – arm and called his own plays throughout his football career. Most of that's opinion, what could be done is to provide a citation of people who called him a "tough competitor" with a "powerful arm". Likewise, the sentence that refers to him as "the premier quarterback". Tarkenton, Griese, Stabler, and Staubach could all dispute that, so a more reasonable point of view needs to be provided. The entire article is presented as a collection of little trivia factoids, rather than as complete paragraphs with a direction. I agree also with the earlier comment about the two paragraphs on Bradshaw's religious beliefs: they're an example of the article's lack of direction, because they appear in the middle of his NFL career instead of in his "Personal Life" section, and they're too long without really saying much. They should be condensed into a couple of sentences instead of presented as a two-paragraph quote. References should be relatively easy to find for a player of Bradshaw's fame, but hardly anything here has citations. It's a thorough article, but it needs work for GA status.GuySperanza (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]