Talk:New England Patriots/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 18:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll start this review ASAP. Just before we begin, to sort out confusion, I will have a general review then an in depth prose and source review. In the general review, I'll use the "GA tools" box. I feel pretty bad for the number of times this page has been started and deleted, so I'll try and start/finish this review quickly. MrWooHoo (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Main Review[edit]
GA Toolbox[edit]
- Please resolve the issues noted here (besides the first note as this is a GA review). There are a couple of "weasel words" and some footnote punctuation problems. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
General Review[edit]
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | See prose review below. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Some weasel words that need to be changed |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | See source review below. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Wrong license for just this picture. I don't believe the cheerleaders are air force members. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Fix GA toolbox problem, image license, prose review, and dead links. |
.jpg){kind=link}
Prose Review[edit]
Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use 
or 
Done
If the change was only partially done use 
, and 
or 
Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P)
To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.
- "The Patriots played their home games at Foxboro Stadium from 1971 to 2001, then moved to Gillette Stadium at the start of the 2002 season."
- Right now, only 2002 is linked. Link both words of "2002 season" to the 2002 NFL season article.
- "This includes the current teams, the New York Jets, the Miami Dolphins, and the Buffalo Bills, as well as former divisional opponents the Colts."
- Why not say "the Indianapolis Colts" for conformity?
- See the Oakland Raiders subsection.
- Is it necessary for this subsection to be so long? It seems like a play by play summary in the first half of the subsection.
- "On the field, the Patriots have typically utilized an "Erhardt–Perkins" offense and a "Fairbanks–Bullough" 3–4 defense, referred to commonly as a 2-gap 3–4 defensive system."
- See WP:NUMERAL. "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."
Source Review[edit]
- Fix these 10 dead links. I'd advise Wayback Machine to retrieve old versions. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- Hi @MrWooHoo: Just wanted to let you know that I have seen this and will try to get to your suggested edits over the next week or so. Thanks and sorry for the delayed response. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 13:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Sportsguy17: I have finished my review, I will now put this review on hold. Take your time. Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just passing through, and saw the missing image mentioned above is from an af.mil domain. Ironically, that's the same as a missing image on a recent FAC image review that I did. Sure enough, I was able to locate the new image in the same way. It is now at this URL -- Saskoiler (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I just cut the Oakland Raiders subsection as unsourced; since that was the remaining issue that hadn't yet been addressed between the many (mostly) abandoned reviews over the past year I'll go ahead and close this. Wizardman 22:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)