Talk:Oklahoma Sooners football/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I will do the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a long article I will make comments as I read through it.

For an article of this length the lead is remarkably short. See WP:Lead for requirements. The lead should encompass a summary of all the points raised in the article. I would expect a three paragraph lead for an article like this. It should be expanded.
The "Owens era" section seems to be mis named as only one paragraph of the three is actually about Owens, the other paragraphs deal with other coaches. Consider renaming the sections by years or some other nomenclature that is more descriptive.
I'm noticing a lot of jargon. Using terms like, "beating them in their back yard the Sugar Bowl". This may be understandable in certain circles but to a wider audience, many of whom are not from the US and may not be familiar with US sports terms, this wording is confusing. I fixed this particular example but there are others. Please consider reviewing the article from the stand point of a person who may not be familiar with sports terminology. More to come. H1nkles (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to put isbn numbers in the article. They go in the reference section.
I put a {{fact}} template in the Wilkinson era after the assertion that they went undefeated for three years.
Please update the information about the winning streak of 47 games. The article says as of 2007, this should be updated.
There's a reference to the Big 8/Big 12, this should be at least linked and explained.
Some of the years are linked to sports in that given year like 1953, but other years are not. Please be consistent in this. Either link them all or don't link any of them.
There are quite a few hard spaces added where they shouldn't be. See WP:NBSP for details. Not a big deal for GA but I thought I'd mention it.
There are a few paragraphs without an in-line citation. I won't put {{fact}} templates on all of them but they should be addressed nonetheless.
This sentence, "They entered their sixth game with a 5–1 record (their only loss was a two point loss coming to rival Texas) and unranked[19] and beat ninth ranked Colorado, 23–0." is confusing to me. What does "and unranked" mean in the context of the paragraph? I don't understand.
Watch weasel wording. I added a {{who}} template in the Jones et al section. More to come. H1nkles (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like that the article outlines both the positives and the negatives about the program. This helps give balance to the article. Well done in that regard.
I'm not sure what this sentence, "He ordered numerous old files to be thrown out; instead, they were archived without his knowledge." has to do with anything. It is in the para about Schellenberger. It seems like there should be more here but I can't figure it out. H1nkles (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The stoops era is way too long. The body of the main article, Oklahoma Sooners football under Bob Stoops is roughly 2,600 words (excluding lead and tables), this section of the article is 2,300 words. Please summarize better, trim out unnecessary detail and keep it focused. This is one of the GA Criteria. I'll wait to review this section after it's been edited down to a summary.
I can also see that the first three paragraphs and the last two paragraphs in the section are very sparsely referenced this should be addressed.
No references in the coaching history section.
Update the attendence average in the stadium section, it's listed from the 2006 season.
Regarding references. There are several dead links. You can find them here [1]. The red lines are dead links that need to be repaired. I find 7 dead links. The ref number may be off by one, this is a glitch in the tool.

Overall I think the article is good and a lot of work has been put into it. Unfortunately there are several areas that do not meet the current GA Criteria. I've listed them above. I will put the article on hold for a week and notify interested projects and editors of this review. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any work done on this article. As such I will delist. H1nkles (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]