Talk:Greg Skrepenak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Greg Skrepenak 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 3, 2007.


Contents

[edit] Amazon search

An amazon.com search yielded the following results:

  • "Game Day Michigan Football: The Greatest Games, Players, Coaches And Teams in the Glorious Tradition of Wolverine Football" by Bo Schembechler, Triumph Books (August 2006), ISBN 1572438797
  • "The Ultimate Oakland Raiders Trivia Book" by Dave Newhouse, American Sports Media (September 2001), ISBN 0971392404
  • "What it Means to Be a Wolverine: Michigan's Greatest Players, Talk about Michigan Football ", by Kevin Allen, Art Regner & Nate Brown, Triumph Books (September 2005), ISBN 1572436611

[edit] Quick-failed Good Article nomination

Two quick-fail criteria of the GA process are instability and cleanup banners. Though a {{future election candidate}} template does not necessitate cleanup or NPOV problems, it does make clear that the article is going to be changing significantly with the upcoming or on-going election. Good Articles should be stable, so I welcome editors to simply renominate the article once any time-sensitive work is completed. If you feel this decision was in error, you may request a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 21:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:VanTucky here) The current queue for sportspersons is about 5 weeks and the election is 3 days away. The time sensitive information will be cleared up by the time the article is going to be seriously evaluated. If you like I will wait until after next Tuesday's election, but was anxious to get this in the queue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(also copied from User talk:VanTucky) P.S. Should this be in sportspersons or politicians?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Just as a further explanation Tony, "not the subject of future events" is part of the wording in the quick-fail criteria of stability. I probably should have mentioned this in the original quick-fail notice, but I think I simply passed it over. Thanks for your hard work, and your patience, VanTucky Talk 23:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Overall, the prose is less than compelling and many of your sentences begin with "he" or "Skrepenak" so it could use some sprucing up there.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    If he played pro football for several years, how come there is only a tiny little section devoted to it. And don't most sports person articles include a stats table?
  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):
    There are no images, but I've never failed an article because of lack of images and I don't intend to start now.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    You have a good start, but the prose needs improving and you should have more about his NFL career, and possibly a stats table. Most NHL player articles have such things, but I don't know if it's the norm for football players, so correct me if I'm wrong. If you feel I am wrong in my review, feel free to contact me. -- Scorpion0422 17:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A reassessment of this review can be found here. No action was taken, but renomination at GAN was recommended. Geometry guy 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold comments

Just a few things before I pass this for GA:

  • The statement "…but some say it may have also been partially due to vocal play selection criticism" needs attribution or removal.
Sorry...my eyes skipped over it. Kakofonous (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just about everything I could find. Kakofonous (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 1, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Clear, efficient prose.
2. Factually accurate?: Very well referenced.
3. Broad in coverage?: Couldn't find anything that seemed to not have thorough coverage.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: If one of Skrepenak could be located, then great, if not, fine.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Kakofonous (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)