Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Greg Skrepenak/1

Greg Skrepenak

 * Article (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Article talk (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Watch article &middot; Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: No action, but renomination is recommended. Geometry guy 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article was wrongly failed as part of an effort to hunt for articles to fail among my then 29 concurrent nominees. Although I have beefed up the NFL career portion of the article I believe the article should have been placed on hold for such an improvement request. I have relisted the article at WP:GAN, but feel that I should pursue this avenue. This is the first article I have had failed and listed here for rereview. I have comments on my opinion of the reviewers efforts at. I believe the article should be passed because it not only expounds on his collegiate and professional careers, but also gives extensive details on high school and post athletic career and has decent family info. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The prose need sharpening. Here are a few examples: With some copy editing this article can be a GA contender. Keep up the great work, Tony.Majoreditor (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As a result of his heroics... - the use of the term "heroics" is over-the-top haliographic language for describing his high school football career.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * However, he got injured during his second preseason start when Charles Haley bull rushed him and he got tangled up between Jeff Hostetler and the turf, which resulted in a dislocated ankle joint and which kept him out for the season. The word got is usually a poor choice for encyclopedic writing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Skrepenak was deactivated from the roster for the final two games of the season (officially due to a combination of a rib injury and the flu, but possibly in part due to vocal play selection criticism) right before his contract expired. Lengthy parenthetical remarks like this are awkward. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He was the only Panthers to start every game of both the 1996 and 1997 National Football League seasons. This sentence should use the singular noun Panther rather than the plural Panthers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has been expanded substantially since the GA review, which means that the review did what it was supposed to. This user just seems to be using this process as a way to get the page quickly promoted. -- Scorpion0422 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply The article has two modest paragraphs that have been added. However, the article should not have been failed in its prior form, IMO. As I have stated on your talk page and at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations a modest effort should have been anticipated for a lineman.  In American football, except for the skill position players there is not a whole lot to say for players who do not reach the Pro Bowl level in general.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This process is meant for when the reviewed version was good enough to pass, not after you followed the review and the article has been improved a bunch. -- Scorpion0422 04:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, the review forced me to add two paragraphs of filler information that did not improve the quality of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The bickering needs to stop, guys. Comments have strayed towards supporting egos, not the article or process, so the issue needs to be dropped.  Right or wrong, the article was failed and we need to move on.  Ɛƚ ƈơƅƅ ơƚɑ  talk 20:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Renominate at GAN. The article has been expanded and improved since it failed. It could still use some tweaking to prose prior to renomination. Majoreditor (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Renominate Holds have the condition of “reasonably expect[ing]” the changes to be made promptly; obviously, the nominator and reviewer had different expectations, both of which seem reasonable.  Reviewers are allowed to make judgment calls, so I don’t see anything “inappropriate” with the failure.  List the article at WP:GAN again and get a fresh start.  Ɛƚ ƈơƅƅ ơƚɑ  talk 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * List Although put reference 15, 17, 18, 25, 27, 30, 41 in lowercase and there is something wrong with reference 20. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No action. I see no problem with this review. The article can of course be renominated at GAN, but there is no need to take any action at this GAR. Geometry guy 18:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)