Talk:Dan Fouts/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: NSNW (talk · contribs) 15:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well take this up, don't know much about him and would love to learn. NSNW (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
and would be welcome back to the team... it should be "welcomed", throwing for over 900 yards and 9 touchdowns... all numbers from 0-9 should be spelled out, so "9" should be "nine", Both Jefferson and Joiner had 1,000 yard receiving seasons... add a hyphen between 1,000 and yard, Winslow is credited with revolutionising the tight end position through his pass-catching ability... spell it "revolutionizing", San Diego were again the #1 seed in the AFC playoffs... change it to "was", This last total would prove to be the joint most of his career... add a hyphen between joint and most, Fouts went 25 of 40 for 435 yards, 1 touchdown and 2 interceptions... once again, change 1 and 2 to their written forms, San Diego travelled to Pittsburgh in the first round of the playoffs... "traveled" only has one "l", amid rumours that he had been pressured into the decision... "rumours" is spelled "rumors", going 37 of 56 for 380 yards, 4 touchdowns and 1 interception... change to 4 and 1 to written form, as they led the league in points scores... "scores" should be "scored", which caused the Week 3 games to be cancelled... "cancelled" only has one "l", traling by about 4,000 yards... spell it "trailing", When Fouts was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1993, he choose Coryell to present him... spell it "chose", when they was elevated to the number two team behind Jim Nantz and Phil Simms... change it to "were",

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Fouts was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1993, his first year of eligibility... this sentence is stated a few paragraphs before this, delete it, During his time at Oregon, Fouts set 19 school records, including those for career passing yardage (5,995) and total offense (5,871). He was inducted into the university's hall of fame in 1992... try and fit this sentence into one of the other two paragraphs.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
[270] links to an msn article about the original article, but it now links to the msn homepage; use the original article as the reference.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Violations unlikely via Earwig's Copyvio Detector (copyvios.toolforge.org)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Both 1986 Jeno's Pizza - 53 - Dan Fouts and Don Macek (Dan Fouts crop).jpg and Jeno's Pizza 54 Fouts vs 49ers.pdf have no linked sources, I have no idea where you got them and to check for them being in the public domain

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Nominator comments

I've done the majority of these. The only ones I'd query are those relating to whether to spell out touchdown and interception totals, on account of them being 0-9. The style guide does say, "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32." It depends on whether touchdowns and interceptions count as comparable to the nearby attempts, completions and yards stats. My feeling is that they should, as they're all part of the same stat line. I think I started out on Wikipedia spelling them out, but I feel the stat lines do scan more easily for the reader if all numbers are represented as symbols. I'll make the change if you strongly believe it's necessary, though.
With regard to the images, the Fouts / Macek picture originally comes from this one: [1] It's one of a few dozen from an 80s set of cards which are widely used around Wikipedia. The Fouts vs 49ers card is one from that set that I bought myself and uploaded. To be honest, I struggle to understand the image usage rules, but hoped that these are okay, as the set is widely used.Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the numbers, I'll be fine with keeping them like that for now. As for the images, you are misunderstanding me. I've looked at the image page, the issue is that nothing is linked under the "source" section. This is where you are supposed to link where you found the image in the first place. I noticed you had other public-domain playing cards that you linked to a particular website, try to find those playing cards there and then link them to the image. NSNW (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not fixed the msn.com reference. NSNW (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I missed the MSN issue. I couldn't find the original but have replaced it with another report of Fouts leaving.

With regard to the pictures, I've found them both on that website: #53 and #54.[2] Strictly speaking, though, that's not the original source. The first one was uploaded to Wikimedia back in 2017 by a user who's no longer active on Wikimedia, so I don't know where he got it from. The second one was uploaded by myself, after scanning the card, so there's no website to link to. I could give the links to the tcdb website, and the images are identical of course, but strictly speaking that isn't the source.Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good. They dont have to be an absolute original source, these will do. NSNW (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]