Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2013 Chicago Bears season/1

2013 Chicago Bears season[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails 1a (concision) and 3b (unnecessary detail). At nearly 15,000 words, this article likely needs to be reduced in size by as much as 50% before it can be reasonably expected to meet the GA criteria. Though this is not a GA requirement, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also relevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the prose consists of the game summaries which is pretty much the entire purpose of the article. I don't see why this strays into unnecessary detail. Each game is summarised by about two paragraphs which seems concise enough. I don't see how you've arrived at this 50% figure for size reduction. Willbb234 16:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there's always a subjective element when deciding which details are necessary in an article like this. Still, I've got 13 of them passed as GA, and the longest is under 9,000 words I think. Looking at this article...

The first paragraph of every match summary is a preview, which I seems a bit obsolete once the games have happened.
"Organisational changes" features a number of red-linked scouts. I'm not sure we need coverage of coach beyond the HC and his co-ordinators either.
For "Roster changes", there could be a table for Acquisitions and another one for Departures, with further prose details given for bigger name players, e.g. Urlacher.
I'm not sure there's anything too vital in the "Offseason activities" section.

Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of every match summary is a preview no it's not. The organisational changes section is quite concise for what it covers. It is also comprehensive in the sense that it covers virtually all departures and arrivals of coaches and staff. Just because a coach is red linked that does not make him non-notable. I would agree that a table could complement the arrival and departures section, but this is not a necessity for GAs. I've cut down the draft section but have left the commentary as I think it's relevant. Willbb234 16:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I had not seen AirshipJungleman's work before commenting. Willbb234 16:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to this article keeping GA status as it is now. Good work by a number of editors. Harper J. Cole (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.