Talk:Colt McCoy/GA1

GA Reassessment
2005- Matt McCoy (no relation to Colt) was the 3rd string QB as a walk-on. He did play in mop up situations and this did not confuse anyone but uninformed idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.158.86 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is OK, maybe a 6/10. Its good enough for a pass here, but remember to look it over for grammatical problems and stylistic things like using numerals instead of written numbers for the digits one to ten.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Double check that all references are properly laid out with title, publisher, date of publication and last access dates.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The personal life section is a mess - facts are thrown out without any cohesion or order. It has to be organised in a more systematic way into clear consise paragraphs.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * You were right, that section had gotten messy. I reorganized into 4 clear paragrapsh:  Religion, The life-saving incident, Volunteer work, and family.  I also added some new information to the 2008 season, and updated the lead.  Please let me know if you think more work is needed.  Best, Johntex\talk 17:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats much better. The only thing I'd still like to see are the references that are improperly formatted being given title, publisher and last access fate information, as I've described below. This is not a massive problem, and I cannot envisage this article losing its GA status as a result, but I will hold the review oen till then end of the period so that this can be done first. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)