Wikipedia:Peer review/2006 Chicago Bears season/archive1

2006 Chicago Bears season
This page is written mostly by Bears fans for Bears fans, so even though it might have some POV problems, I think it's a very good and informative article chronicling a teams' season. If you review this page, maybe give some ideas about how the article can be made more neutral, and better overall. RMelon 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article could use some more references. Currently, the 2007 Chicago Bears season has just as many references as the 2006 season, even though the 07 season has yet to start. Also, I think the game summaries should be cut down, along with the article's overall size ;-) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some comments: Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 13:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It shows that the article is written "by Bears fans for Bears fans". For those who (like me) are unfamiliar with American football jargon parts of the article are rather impenetrable. The tone also often reads like a magazine rather than an encyclopedia. Examples: the Bears' defensive line pulverized Matt Hasselbeck, recording five sacks; Robbie Gould remained perfect on the year; burned the Cardinals for an 83-yard touchdown.
 * Statistics are overused. This relates to the first point, hardcore fans might be interested in detailed stats, the general reader is not. The weather is irrelevant unless it had a significant impact on a game. The TV commentator is not important (and a source of systematic bias).
 * The TOC is huge. One subheading per game is more than enough.
 * The lead section should be two or three paragraphs for an article of this size. See WP:LEAD.
 * References should be presented as footnotes rather than as bare links in the text, preferably using a template such as.
 * Epilogue section: avoid making crystal-ballish comments about what may happen in the future.
 * I am unsure of the validity of a fair use claim for the uniform pictures. Creating a free-use diagram showing adequate information about colours should be trivial, perhaps with a template based on a modified version of Template:Football kit or somesuch.

Here are a few additional suggestions: Hope I was of assistance.--Djrobgordon 05:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Make sure your sources support your claims. For instance, in the first paragraph of the "Offseason" section, the source doesn't confirm that "The Chicago Bears’ 2006 NFL Draft picks drew much criticism from various Bears’ fans and local sports critics."  Almost every national and local football columnists writes a draft review, so it shouldn't be difficult to find a couple sources to quote, which will allow you to cut the weasel words.
 * I've never heard "training camp" referred to as "summer camp." Consider changing that header.
 * Ditto the above comments about the magazine-like tone. Phrases like "brewing quarterback controversy" are colloquial, and probably not clear to novices.
 * Consider moving the roster, as well as some of the other charts, to the bottom of the article. Charts should be supplementing the prose, not the other way around.
 * This is purely a personal preference, but the scoring summaries seem like overkill. After looking at a few other season articles, they seem to be optional.  They're not egregious, but I don't see the article getting featured with them.
 * The game summaries are almost completely unsourced. I can accept a box score without a source, sine they're easily verifiable, but not the paragraphs.  Since sites like ESPN.com, Yahoo! Sports, Sportsline, etc., have archived game summaries, they shouldn't be difficult to reference.
 * If a football term, such as "intentional grounding," can't be linked to a definition, provide a brief explanation.
 * The "Epilogue" section is unnecessary. It presents no new information.  Unlike an essay, it's not necessary for an encyclopedia article to have a "conclusion."