Talk:1950 Maryland Terrapins football team/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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:

Specific concerns

• The biggest single problem with this article is that it's mostly disconnected information. There is information in the lead which isn't in the body of the article. There are two big long lists at the very start of the article. There is only the lead to tie anything together. IT reads like a featured list candidate, not an article on the team itself. There really isn't any ARTICLE to judge. Look at 2007 Texas Longhorns football team where there is information to connect the bits and pieces into a coherent whole. I don't expect as much information as given in that article, but I expect there to be something tying all the information together.
• I"m also not seeing an assertion of notablity here, which is needed in an article. Why is it important to have an article on this particular team? They didn't make a bowl appearance, so I'm not sure a single season article is required.
• Also lacking is an overview of the season itself. What controversies took place? Who were the coaching staff? When did the season take place? Any records set?
• Who were the players honored by the team itself? Who were the captains?
• Another concern is that most of the information is sourced to primary sources. There is little outside sources used, and this can lead to bias
• A smaller concern is the use of the logo on the article. I'm not sure that fair use applies for its use on a single season article.
• I haven't reveiwed the article in any more depth, so the prose and other aspects of the article haven't been reviewed against the criteria.

Given my concerns laid out above, I'm not sure you'll be able to bring this around to GA standard in a week. It needs a complete overhaul, as well as additional research to assert notablity and to fill in the large gaps information. For that reason, I'm going to fail the nomination. If you disagree with this assessment, you are, of course, welcome to being the article to WP:GAR. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A few other things that are missing: team changes, retirements and new recruits, or trades to other teams. Also missing is information on the team structure, forwards, defenders, wingers, centremen etc, strengths and weaknesses: height, speed, tackling power etc? What was team strategy? Formations like in soccer 4-4-2, 3-5-1-1 etc or whatever I don't know what the possible tactics are but I don't see any discussed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)