Talk:Marquise Walker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Marquise Walker 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 January 4, 2008.
February 17, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

[edit] Sold Super Bowl Ring

I have commented out the following information in the article due to low quality sources: In March 2007, Walker supposedly posted his Super Bowl ring on eBay with a $50,000 minimum bid.[1][2]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 08:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bucs Superbowl Ring on EBay, No Really it is . . .. bucem.com (2007-03-20). Retrieved on 2007-12-30.
  2. ^ Anybody want a Super Bowl ring?. The Official Bulletin Board of The Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2007-03-19). Retrieved on 2007-12-30.

[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.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 160 yards, use 160 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 160 yards.[?]YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Unable to identify wrong abbreviation. It does not seem to be "No. 1" —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

Some rather large prose issues, that I've detailed below

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  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):
  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:

Details:

  • Template:Persondata
  • n dashes in the infobox (normally I'd get them, but I'm in more of a hurry today, sorry!)YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Is collegiately a word? Not in my dictionary.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph of the lede, third sentence is very run on, consider rewording for clarity.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • High school section, first paragraph, a number of the later sentences start with "Walker.." consider rewording.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Same section, second paragraph, the detailed information on what the players who broke Walker's records is just fluff, and interupts the flow of the paragraph.
    • It is fairly common for important accomplishments to be descibed in succession format. Often succession boxes are used and in other cases infoboxes have succession fields (see Jenny McCarthy, Hillary Clinton, Michael Jordan, and Barack Obama). In this case, succession boxes or fields would not be appropriate because the persons are not notable enough to have their own articles. However, since many who will be reading this article will be from Central New York, they will consider the information more than fluff because the non-notable (by WP standards) people are local heros. If you don't mind I would like to retain these details for this reason, but am open to discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I can see using the names, what I was more referring to was the extra infomration PAST the names.. like "who played Division III football at State University of New York at Cortland of the New Jersey Athletic Conference from 2003–2006 and earned 2006 first team All-conference honors" where the New Jersey Athletic Conference is not really relevant. Let me go ahead and cull what I think is extraneous, and if you disagree, you can put it back. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • College career. First paragraph, why is it important that Donovan McNabb only had one year remaining? Remaining in what? (*I* know, but others might not)YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Same paragraph, Consider condensing some of the records and who surpassed them down. Instead of the two sentences "These marks were also surpassed by Edwards in 2004." and "Edwards also surpassed this mark." combine the two in the second sentence something like "Edwards also surpassed both of these marks."YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "During his time at Michigan, he totaled four blocked punts." is awkward, consider rewording, and reworking the entire paragraph.
  • "Walker's statistics ranked him very highly ..." is not only awkward, it's opinion, and can't be sourced to a list of individual records. If you take out the 'very' it's safer.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • WAAAYYY too much of the college career section is about his records, and who surpassed them. His big reception is buried at the bottom. The repetition of the "Walker set a record. So-and-so surpassed it." is very dull and boring. Consider placing the last two paragraphs first, and pruning the records section down considerably.
    • I think you may be getting use to articles where User:Cbl62 and I work together and he adds a lot of quotes and quips and I add a lot of stats. Without his quotes and quips it looks like I am just adding a bunch of endless stats. I will attempt to revise however. I have rearranged and added some non-record information. However, I am having trouble with the pruning.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As I revisit this complaint, I wonder if the fact that I have combined several separate statements into "These marks were all surpassed by Braylon Edwards in 2004." is sufficient.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That did it, and the moving the big reception up top, made the section feel less like "so many records" and more about how well he played. It'd be like doing an article about the Ice Bowl, and spending the first two thirds detailing the various stats and only at the end mentioning the snow and the incredible play. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro career, first paragraph. "The knock" is not only not explained, it's not very encyclopedic, consider rewording. YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • John Gruden isn't properly introduced. I know it's in the lede, but it needs to be here also.
    • I am not sure what you wanted. What do you see as belonging in the WP:LEAD and what should be in this section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, didn't explain myself properly. I meant that when you first mention John Gruden outside the lede, you didn't explain there who he is, but you've done so now.Ealdgyth | Talk 21:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose in this section is awkward at times. The sentence "He was traded to the Arizona Cardinals..." doesn't introduce who Thomas Jones was, and it awkward to read. The next sentence lacks context, why is it important to know where Walker was on the 2002 depth chart now, when the discussion is about the Cardinals. Might make more sense in the Bucs section. YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The transition between the description of the accident and the fact that the Pats released him is abrupt. Did the Pats release him because of the DUI arrest? Was he convicted? The accident just appears, and then disappears without any fuller context or connection to the surrounding prose. YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Who is Jay Gruden? The coach of one of the Arena football teams?YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 09:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The pro career section suffers from a number of very short stubby sentences, like the last two , which would probably be better combined. There are some in the College section also.
  • Honestly? Ditch the pictures. Especially the rose bowl one, since he didn't play in the Rose Bowl. The coach one is more marginal, but pictures aren't required for GA status, so rather than reach to include some, I'd rather see none.
    • I removed Rose Bowl image and will remove or not object to the removal of the other if necessary for GA promotion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I won't hold it back for the John Gruden shot, but it's only marginally tied into the article, so it's not a biggie either way. If it was a fair use pic, it'd probably have to go, but since it's copyright free, it's no biggie. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

All in all, the prose needs some serious work. I've tried to highlight the sections that jumped at me, but i recommend some serious work on it. I find it helpful to take a day or two away, then sit down and read the prose to myself which often times will let me see what's wrong with it.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking pretty good. Double check on my pruning and let me know if it's acceptable. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better. Passing it now. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)