Talk:2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season/GA1

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

Starting review, checking quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC) ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * A large number of sentences start The Steeelers or Pittsburgh. Consider some copy-editing to improve the prose style.  Lead: Based on the previous season's results, the Steelers faced the most difficult in the league Most difficult what? Post-season Due to the Steelers' regular season record the team finished in second place in the AFC, a bit clumsy, perhaps Their regular season record gave the Steelers second place in the AFC. These are minor points, I would suggest one more cast trough to make copy-edits.  WP:MOS OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I went through the article and changed some of the wording, specifically the overuse of Steelers as you mentioned. I completely argree that it's repetitive and wish I could do more, but there's not a ton that can be done about it because we have to call them something and it probably becomes couter-productive to say "them" or "they". Lead "most difficult schedule" Fixed. Post-season Changed sentence.  black ngold29  03:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I agree that it is difficult sometimes to find suitable phrasing. ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Well referenced, #101 is broken, I have placed a dead link template. all other references check out. all are reliable sources, no WP:OR Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the broken linked citation, there were two cites on that sentence and the other one covers everything.  black ngold29  01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, keep an eye on links, especially press or media as they are likely to disappear, but may be replaced by old versions from the Internet Archive. ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is certainly thorough and broad in scope - I was worried by the length but following the recommendation at LENGTH the prose is only 60k which is acceptable. The article remains focussed throughout. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article adheres to a WP:NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * The article is stable, no edit warring, evidence of good editor co-operation on talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The one image used is correctly tagged and licensed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Just a few points above, if these can be addressed I will be happy to pass. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, all points have been addressed. ✅ A Good article definitely. I now know more than I ever thought I would about the Steelers (speaking as a Bristol City F. C. supporter). Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a few points above, if these can be addressed I will be happy to pass. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, all points have been addressed. ✅ A Good article definitely. I now know more than I ever thought I would about the Steelers (speaking as a Bristol City F. C. supporter). Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)