Talk:Thom Darden/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
information in the lead that isn't in the body of the article
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
need to say how long he played in the NFL
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

Suggest ditching the non-infobox photos. They aren't specific enough to the subject and they really don't add that much to the article. I also have concerns about the fair use rationale for the game pic, as I don't see Darden identified in the photo, so I'm not sure who it helps understand Darden (I can see how it'd help understand the ref and Haynes, just not Darden)
- I have trouble ditching either photo.
  - You have done a ton of Michigan Football player reviews and know we put them in the article of every guy who has played in the Rose Bowl.
  - As for Woody Hayes. He made Darden an Ohio-Michigan Icon. You should read back through the newspapers for the last twenty years and see how many times he was mentioned compared to comparably skilled players. Every year when papers throughout either state write about the rivalry game they talk about Darden. This picture depicts that which is described in the text of the article and is thus a valid fair use, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to hold up the GA on this, but if you try for FA on this, don't be surprised if the Fair Use police come after you. (Its not worth the bother to me... I'm not a member of that cabal!) As for the Rose bowl pic, this is a VERY short article, the number of pics is probably excessive for the amount of text. You need the pic of Darden, and you won't drop the pic of the ref, but the rose bowl pic is crowding out the others, and detracts from them. But if you really won't lose it, again, it's not worth the fight to me, I'm just trying to explain why I think there are too many pictures. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many seasons did Darden play for the Browns?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mention the pro bowl selection in the lead, but not in the body of the article. Also the all pro selections. Needs to be in the body if it's in the lead.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same for the birthplace, need to mention it in the body of the article.
- I moved the birthplace, but the birthdate seems out of place.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]