Talk:Colt McCoy/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

2005- Matt McCoy (no relation to Colt) was the 3rd string QB as a walk-on. He did play in mop up situations and this did not confuse anyone but uninformed idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.158.86 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 number of issues that need to be addressed.

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

The prose is OK, maybe a 6/10. Its good enough for a pass here, but remember to look it over for grammatical problems and stylistic things like using numerals instead of written numbers for the digits one to ten.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Double check that all references are properly laid out with title, publisher, date of publication and last access dates.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The personal life section is a mess - facts are thrown out without any cohesion or order. It has to be organised in a more systematic way into clear consise paragraphs.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, that section had gotten messy. I reorganized into 4 clear paragrapsh: Religion, The life-saving incident, Volunteer work, and family. I also added some new information to the 2008 season, and updated the lead. Please let me know if you think more work is needed. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats much better. The only thing I'd still like to see are the references that are improperly formatted being given title, publisher and last access fate information, as I've described below. This is not a massive problem, and I cannot envisage this article losing its GA status as a result, but I will hold the review oen till then end of the period so that this can be done first. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the article has 85 inline citations. Just skimming them quickly, it looks like about 78 are properly formatted and about 7 are just a link. I'll work on fixing those if no one beats me to it. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are all in the personal life section, shouldn't be too difficult to deal with.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I have fixed them all now. Please check and see if you still see any problems. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have indeed, although please look out for unexpected bolding and unlink the dates as they are no longer supposed to be linked. It has passed, thanks for all the work on the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for helping to improve the article. I fixed the accidental bolding now also. I am in no hurry to unlink the dates. It is not really clear to me that the changes discussed as MOSNUM are going to have Wikipedia-wide consensus. If consensus is kept and maintained, I expect someone who is a proponent of this change will come up with a bot to implement it. Cheers, Johntex\^talk 18:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]