Talk:Skip Holtz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Skip Holtz 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 March 13, 2008.
April 12, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] GA Review

I've read part of it so far, and will finish it this weekend. First thing I've noticed is that "he couldn't do it at that time with me [Skip] being his son." and "Well, if I'm just going to switch coaches, I might as well hire Skip." need to be cited, as all quotes need to be cited. I'll finish up the review over the next day or two. Wizardman 00:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Done. Those quotes were from the same source as the whole paragraph, woopes. Also, could you give the article a quick FA review if you have a chance? Thanks, PGPirate 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, ok. At FAC, they'll probably want anything problematic cited rather than one at the end of the paragraph. It's fine for GA, but just something I'll point out. Wizardman 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in this, life's taking it's toll right now. I'll finish the review and have it up tonight. One thing you might want to do while you wait is split up a couple of the very long paragraphs in the last couple sections. No need to lump it all. Wizardman 13:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria)
  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:

Now, there is quite a bit of work that needs to be done before it's an FAC. The prose is good, but not great. Fine tune it and make it more compelling where you can. As I said above, add in references where you can, they're picky on that. Also, there's quite a few references in the lead. There's nothing against that, but I try and discourage that, try and faze them out where you can do so. I'd ask some college football specialists to take a look at the article and help you out with it, it could be an FA with some work. But it does meet all the GA criteria at least (all my criticisms i pointed out earlier and you've fixed them all). Wizardman 04:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)