Talk:Don Dufek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Don Dufek has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 29, 2007.
January 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed


[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

Short, but comprehensive and decently written

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    A few MOS and prose tweaks would improve this, see below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Footnote 20 needs some formatting issues
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Only thing that would be nice to see is what he is currently employed at
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    As usual, some minor issues that could be addressed

Details:

  • Lede - Link Big Ten, and the last two sentences should probably be switched to a position earlier in the lede to better follow the layout of the article and to follow chronological order. Expand the last sentence to explain who his father is, if it is important enough to mention in the lede.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Youth section, first paragraph is one sentence paragraph and the second paragraph is two sentences. Should probably merge the two to improve sentence flow.YesYUser:Cbl62
  • Same section, third paragraph. The quotation might be getting long enough to use blockquote.
  • Same section, expand and link MVP, UPI, and AP not everyone is going to know what they mean. And is there a link possible for All-State? If not, probably a quick explanation would help non-US residents.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • University of Michigan section, football subsection. The tone of the first sentence in that paragraph is very informal, more suited to a newspaper feature article than an encyclopedia. YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, VAST improvement, very nice turn of phrase! Ealdgyth | Talk 21:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Same section, Hockey subsection. First paragraph, second sentence. I'm guessing that the 14 to 20 games a year means something like ".. he managed to score about 10 goals a year in the shortened seasons he played." The statistic is obviously important, but without context on how many games were normally in a season and how many goals most left wings would have scored in a complete season, saying how many games he managed to play a season seems unneeded to me and a level of detail that's not of use.YesYgames removed by User:Cbl62, ref added--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Same section and subsection, last paragraph, last sentence. Is that a direct quotaion? If so it should be in quotation notes, and if not, it needs to be something like "He explained that he chose football over hockey because he would probably had an extensive tour of the hockey minor leagues and that was something he didn't want."YesYCbl62 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Seattle Seahawks section, expand on the "original Seahawks"... non football fans aren't likely to realize that the 1976 Seahawks were a new team.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Explain in a brief statement who Steve Largent and Keith Simpson were? Hall of Fame? All Pro? A couple of words should explain why it was significant that he shared captains duties with these figures.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Dufek family - I think I'd retitle this as "Life after football", since it covers more than just the family.YesY retitled otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Same section, what is he doing for work now that he's out of football? Response: I haven't found any information on this. I'll take another look.Cbl62 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ya'll have spoiled me, where's the career statistics? I won't hold the article back but it would be nice to see.
    • I will try to work on something over the long weekend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't sweat it or take time away from your other projects. I get the impression he was a special teams player, so the statistics aren't as needed as they would be for a quarterback or reciever. Certainly don't let it keep you from watching the football games Sunday! (very evil grin) Ealdgyth | Talk 18:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No image of him available? I know it'd be hard to use a fair use image, but nothing available at all? If there isn't, there isn't, so no biggie. Just need to ask and make sure to be a complete review.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Footnote 20 has some formating issues.YesYCbl62 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As is normal, I've put the nomination on hold to allow folks to address these issues. Feel free to bring up any questions and concerns on my talk page or the article talk page.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good all around. Love the collectors cards as the infobox photo! I took the liberty of dealing with a few small issues, including wikilinking ice hockey which I stupidly missed the first time around. I'll get on the epaperwork right now! It passes. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)