Talk:2006–07 Marist Red Foxes men's basketball team/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 16:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the ✅ tag to state when something is addressed.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

 * It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - ✅ Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It contains copyright infringements - copyvio check is clean, image licence is fine. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include,, or large numbers of , , or similar tags. (See also ). -
 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - stable enough Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Prose
I don't think this article meets the GA criteria, I'll leave a few things here, and give you a few days to fix these, and I'd do a full review.
 * Lede is not good enough. It doesn't do a good job of explaining much about the article, and expects the reader to know about basketball. See GA 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team. What is the NCAA? What is the MAAC? The article only mentions that it is a basketball team due to the enbolding, but not that they are a college team. Lede is also on massive paragraph, where it should be split and expanded.
 * What is a "Preview" section?" Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Article quite often changes from "Red Foxes" to "Marist" indiscriminatly. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Lede is a summary of the rest of the article. You can't just start the rest of the article with iformation stated in the lede. The preview section talks as if you already know the team, the division and all the information. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No wikilinks in the preview section at all. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the roster table is a ridiculous mess. So many WP:ACCESS issues here, and despite a key, makes zero sense to me. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No source for results table Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The whole records thing isn't needed, should be in prose. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What even is the rankings table? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See also should be bullet list Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definately not manditory. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi - I have made a few comments here regarding the nomination. If you fancy having a go and making this up to the criteria, I'll leave it open for around a wek. Else, I will simply close this item as a speedy close. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly this article doesn't meet the criteria for a GA. I'll close this one now, but please view the issues raised above for ideas on how to improve the article. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)