Jump to content

Talk:1987 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Review will begin within 24 hours. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 08:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Gonna have to beg out for another 24, pending a little research. I have some reservations about this article before I dive in to do any sort of comprehensive review, but I need to check and see if they're necessarily fair ones. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 01:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind knowing what your reservations are. I can always argue if I disagree :) GuySperanza (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the citation style. I'm going to end up seeking a second opinion on it, but I will give my review otherwise. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 05:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick-fail assessment
  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. - I'm never too crazy about an article having this many print sources, but will assume good faith
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. - Not apparent.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. -
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. - Article has only been edited by the nominator and bots for the last two and a half months.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. - Series of events concluded 22 years ago.

Proceeding with further review. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 05:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    • NFL draft occurs several times, but the NFL Draft article seems to suggest it's a proper noun.
    "NFL drafts" replaced with "NFL Draft". draft is not a proper nound. d<D would be result six changes if it is a proper noun in the case of "[T or t]he draft".Cptnono ( talk) 09:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    nfl.com also seems to indicate that "NFL Draft", as an event, is a proper noun. Referred to informally, as in "the draft" or "the 1987 draft", it would not be a proper noun. In that particular context, he was correct that it should have been capitalized, and I changed it. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perkins brought discipline to the Buccaneers' organization Can you put that in a little context?
    Changed to read "players". Context can be added as to how it was done but that might take it from "get off you ass" to the "the coach did x,y, andz" which probably isn't needed. An extra line wouldn't hurt if the original nominator wants to add it though. three a day sums it up with the wikilink.Cptnono (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a quote on that, and it was in the same Sports Illustrated article that was already cited for that section, so I didn't need to add an extra reference. GuySperanza (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'd read in the past, in several different places, that the previous coach was very lax on discipline, and that the Buccaneers were considered to have a "country club" atmosphere. If I can find a good reference to that, I'll add it. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With Bears quarterback Jim McMahon still sidelined due to his injury at the hands of Charles Martin the previous season I don't see how this is necessarily significant to an article about the Buccaneers, but if it is, more detail is probably needed (what injury? What did Charles Martin do?). Suggest revising or, probably better, outright eliminating this clause.
    Good info from a fans stand point but reduced since it wasn't exactly needed and the overview is a summary.Cptnono (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I don't want to go into too much detail about the injury, because it didn't happen during a Buccaneers game, but the comeback from the injury happened during a Buccaneers game. That injury was one of the biggest sports stories of that year, causing much discussion about the level of violence in sports (because it happened after the play had already been whistled dead, there was discussion over whether criminal assault charges should have been filed), and there was much media speculation in the media the previous week about whether McMahon would return for that game. It's a significant enough issue that it needs mentioning. If you disagree, I'll leave it as reduced, but I think it's more important than you're giving it credit for. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize. Threw most of it back in.Cptnono (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Added brief background on the injury (hope the sentence isn't too awkward) along with a reference that McMahon's return was a subject of interest and speculation. GuySperanza (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Cardinals roared back Avoid noticeably informal phrases like this.
    Fixed by someone elseCptnono (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The team had a 1-1 record when the season was disrupted by the 1987 player's strike. They resumed regular play with a 3-2 record It is explained elsewhere in the article, but I think this needs a slight revision to mention just who played the games between the times the team was 1-1 and 3-2. And oughtn't it be players' strike, as more than just one was player was striking?
    Apostophe already fixed. Moved wikilink to section above.Cptnono (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    expanded. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • as he had been trying to rebuild the Falcons and didn't want to relive that experience with another team. WP:CONTRACTION
    All contractions fixed by someone or in quotes.Cptnono (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • said that DeBerg had one of the best games of any quarterback he'd been associated with. Unless this is a direct quote (and it should be marked as such if it is), ending sentences with prepositions is something up with which we must not put! Also, again unless it's a direct quote, CONTRACTION.
    All contractions fixed by someone.Cptnono (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Buccaneers remained one of only six teams to have no players cross the picket line. This is potentially confusing, as it is already stated earlier in the article that Dan Turk crossed the picket line. I imagine this means one of six teams as of the second week of the strike, but I don't know how to address "remained one of only six." Were those six teams the only ones without players crossing the picket line the previous week, too? Probably should be mentioned there, if so.
    expanded. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The week was marked by sluggish practices. What exactly does this mean?
    clarified. The following sentence was meant to be the explanation, but I made it more explicit. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • were uncertain over whether they'd have a game to play in by the time Sunday arrived. Contraction.
    Fixed by someone.Cptnono (talk)
    • Week 7 - why is the scoring represented in prose reverse-chronologically?
    I made no attempt in any section to present the scoring chronologically. If any section presents the scoring in sequence, it's because I drew from a source which did (and many don't). I try to mention who scored, but it's not intended to be a box-score recap of the game. This section happens to be in chronological order, other than opening with the game's single most important event, that of two fourth-quarter touchdowns that changed the outcome of the game. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coincidentally or not, Woods was demoted to the taxi squad the next week. Phrasing is unencyclopedic, and I'm not sure the event is of any significance, either.
    Had a wikilink but just to make sure reworded. Relevent in a football sense.Cptnono (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand correctly, the objection is to "coincidentally", not to "taxi squad", and whether Woods' demotion meant anything. Since I don't think there was an objection to the "taxi squad" reference, I put it back in, as the sentence already needed editing due to a grammar error. Could be speculation that there's a connection between Woods' speaking up and his demotion the very next week, but this is the same coach who punched a player in the head just for using the word "quit". It's a good illustration (and by no means an isolated incident, there are examples far more disgusting) of how Perkins treated his players. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Buccaneers had entered the game with the lead spot in the wild-card playoff race. Is this significant with nearly half the season left to play?
    I'll add context. It was significant enough for the original print source to point it out, and it was significant because the team had gone 6-42 over the previous three seasons. It wasn't too unusual for playoffs to get discussed that early in that particular season, because the influx of USFL players and the records during replacement games caused the balance of power to shift in unexpected ways that year. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking again, the source of that was a New York Times article: "The Playoff Race: Old Faces and New". An entire article dedicated to playoff standings at that point of the season. Does the very existence of that article imply significance, or does it need more? GuySperanza (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly does "caught" mean in On one 42-yard touchdown, Rice caught Jones in single coverage and outran him." ? Unless Rice had multiple 42-yard touchdowns in the game, the sentence
    Caught makes sense but had is even better.Cptnono (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems part of this concern was cut off (by me, surely ...). Did Rice have multiple 42-yard touchdowns in the game? That's what the current wording suggests. If it's supposed to be on one of his touchdowns, that went for 42 yards, that should be worded as such (or like). Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? GuySperanza (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two fourth quarter scoring opportunities ended in turnovers I'm guessing this means scoring opportunities for the Buccaneers?
    FixedCptnono (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Testaverde was lucky that it wasn't worse, as three of his turnovers were called back due to Lions penalties. WP:CONTRACTION, and were these still turnovers if they were called back?
    FixedCptnono (talk)
    • Lomax picked on Bobby Futrell all day Much too informal.
    Throughout the games instead.Cptnono (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Picked on" was the same phrase used by the source, changed to "exploited". GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    B. MOS compliance:
    • The lead is much too short. Or at least it appears that way. I can't really conceive of a GA having a lead that's a single paragraph, so at the very least I'd like to see what's there split into two paragraphs. But I think it can also be beefed up a little.
    • "Vs" seems an odd abbreviation for "versus." The Versus article itself states that the word is abbreviated "vs.", "vs", or "v."
    Fixed by someone.Cptnono (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tommy Kramer's first touchdown pass since the previous Dec. 14 Dates should not be linked, but in any case, wouldn't it be better to say which week of the season this was?
    I unlinked the date, but the date is what the source gave, not the week of the season. If I go back and figure out what week of the season that was, isn't that 'original research'? GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't think so, but I don't care too much. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Awards and Honors" section is really bare. Not sure if it's necessarily an MOS problem, but I just think it looks bad to have so little text under a section header, when it can probably be inserted elsewhere.
    • Again, not sure if it's necessarily an MOS issue, but 89 citations seems like a lot to not put into multiple columns.
    Someone fixed thisCptnono (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    • Week 9 - direct quotes need to be cited. The nearest citations to "he's going to lose his job to Vinny Testaverde in a couple of weeks anyway". and "...they whipped us in every phase of the game. Even down 28-3, they were playing better football than we were". are both print sources, so I have no way of checking this.
    • "(Perkins) didn't want to give the Saints time to prepare for anything new", said Testaverde. in Week 13 also appears uncited.
    That and the above two are all referenced by the next citation. If other sentences appear between the quote and the citation, that material is from the same source as the quote. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citation style, as I mentioned, has me bewildered. I've never seen anything like it, putting web links in like that. I've read that as long as an article is consistent in citation style, it's not an issue, but I'm going to want to get someone else to address this, particularly as they're not completely consistent in occurrence.
    • http://www.bucpower.com is used several times. Why is this a reliable source?
    • Sources 32, 36, and 39 are dead links.
    The Buccaneers' site has been reorganized since the article was written. Those are now working. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    • I'm really not sure. Citation density seems really light or spotty. Numerous sentences lack a conspicuous citation after them, and then unrelated sentences are cited, making me doubtful that those first sentences are covered by the later citation.
    C. No original research: Assuming good faith with the print sources, no problem here.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    • Might have liked to see some words on preparation for the next season. While obviously a lot of that would belong in the article for the next season, you can say some things in the context of this season, too.
    I don't know about that: I haven't seen anything in the sources about preparation for the following season, other than benching the already-injured DeBerg in favor of Testaverde. By the time the season ends, it's 1988, so information like that will tend to go in the next season's article. I'll see if I can dig anything up. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a huge issue. I was just thinking of the similar articles I do for cycling, like 2008 Astana season, which, when notable and suitable to include, mention offseason changes from the context of the "from" season as well as the "to" season. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc: Definitely stable, as mentioned in the quick-fail assessment.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: N/A, as the article contains no images.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Honestly, there's an awful lot to address, and I'm tempted to just fail the article right now, but I'd like to get a second opinion first. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 09:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the issue with the print sources? Is it that you don't have access to them, and therefore aren't sure whether they exist or are accurately quoted? All newspaper sources are accessible through Google News (have to do an "archive" search). IIRC, this was one of the years for which the original articles are available on the St. Petersburg Times online archive. I provided the links for the N.Y. Times articles, but not for the St. Pete ones, because they're the kind of database searches for which I can't be sure that there are stable URLs linking to the articles. I referenced them as print rather than electronic sources for the simple reason that I have no guarantee that the URL will never change. Unfortunately, these events cover a relatively obscure team during the pre-internet era, so there's not the greatest wealth of sources. Worse yet, the Tampa Tribune, one of the two major newspapers covering this team, does not archive articles this far in the past. It's fortunate that this just happened to be one of the years for which the N.Y. Times archives are free to the public.
No issue with the print sources aside from generalized dissatisfaction over being unable to check them (I have neither the time nor the inclination to check if every single statement is accurately sourced in the citations given - what I'd "check" is simply what the checklinks tool does for the weblinks). Of course print sources are just fine to have in articles. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many specific comments, thanks. I'll get on it. A few of your concerns about citations:
  • Why is bucpower.com reliable? - I prefer to use primary sources, but there are a couple of things that I'm only able to find on that site, and I know that that site uses primary sources and is well-researched. In some cases, they post the actual primary source (newspaper articles, or photocopies of the actual game rosters submitted by the team to the league) on the site. Official NFL documents are about as solid as research material on this subject can get, and if that site is the only published source of them, it's essential.
  • Citation density seems light - The cases you speak of are where information from a single article has been condensed down into a few sentences. I made an attempt to draw out what I felt were the most relevent facts, but they aren't necessarily related to each other. A group of sentences referencing a single article is followed by a citation to that article. If I combine material from multiple articles, it's followed with several citations.
Okay. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • broken links to buccaneers.com - those links are incorrect, maybe a bot did something to them. I'll fix them.
  • Awards and Honors section - that's a tough one: it does look bare, but I myself was astonished to learn that a Buccaneer received an honor at all following this season. Even All-Star-caliber players tend to be overlooked when they play on a 4-11 team. I could roll that information into a different section. GuySperanza (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion

[edit]

Per request I took a quick look at the notes up above.

  • It looks like all of the reasonably well written concerns can be fixed within a reasonable amount of time. If the nominator would notate was has been fixed there I can jump in, too.
  • In regards to factually accurate and verifiable
  • Yes, all direct quotes need inline citations (it is a pain but the way it is)
  • I have never seen this, either. The concern is the way the links are notated not the print sources themselves. I don't think it is against any guidelines but consistency throughout the project is important. If the nominator began switching them over it would show an ongoing effort to improve the article (which should not limit a "pass") and I would again be happy to jump in.
Definitely. I'd feel a lot better if the more standard {{citeweb}} and {{citenews}} were used. There's a reason they're the standard even if they're not technically required. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK per WP:ECITE. I don't like it and would like to see it changed but it should not limit promotion to GA. FA may or may not let it slide but the guideline says it and it is at minimum satisfactory.Cptnono (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not disputing that it's probably okay (didn't I say as much?) but what is WP:ECITE? It's not said to be a policy or a guideline or an essay or anything. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... What is ECITE? It looks like another forgotten page actually. It is linked to at the main Wikipedia:Citing sources page under the sction 4.2.4 (How to present citations->Inline citations->Embedded links). That seciton states it should look like this:
*Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''The Guardian'', October 27, 2005. <!--accessed June 5, 2008-->
So redoing them is in order.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the specific issue? That the citations where a print source is referenced, but an electronic link is also provided? Those particular articles happen to be available online, and I added the link as a convenience to the reader, but I can remove them if it's an issue. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above the concern is the way the links are notated not the print sources themselves. It is in a style not used on Wikipedia. WP:ECITE looks close enough for me, though.Cptnono (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bucpower looks like good info to me but there is not an "about us" section to gauge if it is a blog, fan site, or what. Fortunately, they are not extraordinary claims so they should be easy to swap out with definite reliable sources. Swapping them out should only take a few minutes on google.
I'm not too too worried about it, it was just a point of curiosity. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fansite, and as best as I can tell is the homepage of a U.K. Buccaneer fanclub. As I've said before, they use good primary sources as information. There are two pieces of information I really rely on that site for: draft trades, and uniform numbers. Information on traded draft picks is usually in the newspaper, but it's generally very difficult to find, and they provide it all in one location. Uniform number information can be impossible to otherwise find, in the cases of players who wear more than one uniform number during their career with the team. You'd think that might be published, but it's typically not. Bucpower not only has that information, they've posted the actual official rosters that the team submits to the league with each game, so the accuracy of that information should be impeccable. GuySperanza (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I recall correctly dead links do not necessarily prevent promotion to GA. They should be fixed because it would help the article, though.
  • "Citation density": That is the breaks in reviewing articles :) . Start clicking and verifying. Let me know if you need a hand.
  • I think the lead should be be broken into at least a couple paragraphs to meet WP:LEAD. Don't start it with a number, minor formatting, and make sure it summarizes the article completely.
Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Overall, this article could easily be brought up to par within a week. I recommend putting it on hold and getting to work. If GuySperanza will notate what has been fixed it will be a great start. If this is too tall of an order it should be failed as is but that wouldn't make anyone happy.Cptnono (talk)

Follow-up: I like the direction this article is going and now see no reason it shouldn't be promoted to GA. It has some good info and makes my team's '87 page look boring and lame. There are several little things that need to be address still but the base criteria seems to be met. Any thoughts, Alex?Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been insanely busy at work, sorry I haven't been back to this. I'll give it a look later tonight, I'm in a hundred places at once right now. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Some things take priority. Also, I don't know what I did with to make all the 1s. They won't go away!Cptnono (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, you're certainly not catching any deadline pressure from me. It hasn't been a great week over here, either. BTW, I was really disappointed in the Seahawks that year. I thought they could have won the Super Bowl in 1986 with the way they played at the end of the season, certainly would have performed better than the Broncos; but they missed the playoffs completely, and regressed in '87. Anyway, the Bucs didn't have a good year in '87 and weren't expected to, at least not until they made a good showing in the first part of the season, but it makes for an interesting season to write and read about. Maybe some teams have had unremarkable seasons, but there's something fascinating about looking at a losing season like this one and seeing where it went wrong. All the Buc pages as originally written have POV problems and a complete lack of references, with occasional factual errors. 1981 is a good example. There are a couple of sentences here left over from the original article. One of them was the "Cardinals roared back" phrase that you tagged, and most of the rest are in the heading and the "Steve Young" section. I'm sure that eventually all the team season pages will look like this. Some of the Dolphin season pages are almost vacant, and that's surprising for such a popular team. I'll work on those when I'm done with the Bucs, but these don't get done quickly, and that looks to be a couple of years away. GuySperanza (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I like what I see. I'm glad I wasn't as trigger-happy a few days ago as I might have been :P And take a look at what I've done with the comments - this is how the 1's go away. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stared at the ones for way too long! Nice catch. My biggest concersns were the informal terms and contractions so I am glad those were taken care of. When you are done being slammed with work let me know if there is anything that is still a glaring concern and I'll hop on it.Cptnono (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs are done.Cptnono (talk)

Amazing turnaround. This is what the process is for. Good article. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 22:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks for the in depth review, No Sleep and nice work GuySperanza. Ref format and some slang might need work on the other season pages but it looks like you have some other GAs in the works already.Cptnono (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help. This was the first of these pages that I've worked on, the others are better, but you always need a second pair of eyes. And the help with formatting was huge. Again, thanks. GuySperanza (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1987_Tampa_Bay_Buccaneers_season/GA1&oldid=316562731"