Talk:1989 San Diego Chargers season

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1989 San Diego Chargers season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 19:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'll do a section by section review with very specific feedback next week but two big pieces from my initial read that might take discussion/require some time

• The LEAD doesn't really follow MOS:INTRO at the moment. It's likely going to need some expansion.
• I'm skeptical that the game by game summaries are actually the appropriate depth - there's a reason that the FA articles on sports seasons tend to go by months for instance. However, I do see that it's not unusual for football season GAs. That said they still strike me as a tad overly detailed and, more troublingly, aren't fully cited. At minimum there should be a citation for every paragraph.

• Another general comment as I've gone through this but you are right on the line with WP:OR in several places in this article. This can include both referencing information that might be true but isn't actually verified by the source listed and also making certain characterizations around things that aren't backed up by sources (i.e. some of the more descriptive language). They're the kind of statements that are very recognizable for any football fan but that's not entirely our audience here and we need to be careful to be representing reliable sources rather than our own descriptions. I've noted a lot of these instances below but not all of them so I'd encourage you to do a complete read through with this in mind.
• I want to draw special attention to the 3rd bullet point under regular season about a general concern about sourcing which is related to but distinct from the concern above.

Offseason

• My newspapers.com access has lapsed but the speculation around why Saunders was fired is not included in the part I can access. Is it included in the continuation on C4? "Saunders was perceived as having criticised the personnel decisions of Steve Ortmayer" is also somewhat passive. Perceived by whom?
  • It's touched upon near the end of the section I included; I've added a second link to bolster the statement, and reworded somewhat.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a reason Schottenheimer is the only other candidate mentioned?
  • I felt Schottenheimer was more notable, being an eventual Chargers coach and the biggest name. However, I've added a line listing some other leading candidates.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Is it worth noting they were the first to fire their coach and the last to hire?
  • Now added.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Check your footnotes for the Henning paragraph as some of the information cited to the 2/9 article actually seems to have come from 2/10
  • Looks like I missed out the second half of the first article, detailing his Super Bowl wins. Added now.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Who Henning had backed up is not found in the source cited
  • I've dropped this reference, as I couldn't find any source directly stating it and it's something of an aside.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• The Chargers having the 3rd worst passing offense is not supported by the source cited (as how many teams there were in the NFL in 1988 is hardly common knowledge such that the simple math can be justified)
  • I've changed the citation to something more explicit.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• It's a bit awkward that the first mention of McMahon in the body is as a passing mention under departures. Is there a reason you've separated out arrivals and departures as a combined section would allow for a more comprehensive flow around the various comings and goings? I think a combined section would improve the overall flow and readability.
  • Good idea - I've combined these.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I think this flows nicely. Well done on the merging of the sections. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Why didn't Dalliafor and Rosado play?
  • I've clarified these.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• We should have a secondary rather than statistical source to justify that McMahon was injury prone
  • Linked to a source referring to him as "injury-jinxed".--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• The Hershel Walker tie-in to Nelson strikes me as more confusing than illuminating at the moment
  • I've removed this, as it's fairly incidental.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the Chargers targeted the quarterback position" is the sort of statement I'm talking about as being on the line of OR
  • I've reworded this.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• "significant choice" according to whom?
  • Reworded to simply state that he was a future Pro Bowler.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Preseason

• There were no significant injuries during the preseason? No significant roster/starting battles besides QB?
  • I do mention a couple of injuries that happened in the final game. While there were probably other battles going on, the match reports tend to focus on the quarterback position.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • There's a comment on the kicking battles in arrivals/departures which works as well (can't remember if that's new or was always there). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Regular season

• "McMahon proved a disappointment at quarterback" a disappointment according to who?
  • I've changed this to "McMahon struggled at quarter" and given some sources.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• The McMahon retort causing a media controversy is not supported by the source
  • I've amended to describe McMahon's relations with the media as "frosty".--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Henning, who had been criticised" - I'll use this to note that a lot of the sourcing is to one, not incredibly prominent, newspaper because that seemingly is what Newspaper.com had available. I see no reason to doubt that it's an RS but we should not just be accepting their judgements and putting them into our voice. So something like Henning being criticized would need multiple sources or a single RS that summarizes what multiple sources are saying rather than just the single Escondido Times-Advocate source being critical.
  • I can't find other sources to back this up, so I've removed it.
• "Miller had a breakout year" according to who?
  • Replaced with a cited comment that Miller was voted season MVP by his teammates.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "His marks for receptions and yardage..." needs a source
  • Now sourced.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• The running game being hindered needs a source
  • I've reworded--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Butts being a pleasant surprise needs a source
  • Source added.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• 19/28 teams doesn't strike me as "near the middle". Need a secondary source to describe the overall play.
  • Their rushing yardage was 16th (they were 19th in attempts).--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that clarification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• The commentary about their DL is similar to the Henning comment in that we need more than one newspaper to say it with our voice.
  • I've added three sources for this now.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• How'd you decide on the order of sections? Having the standings and the schedule separated by the game logs doesn't make sense to me. Is there a different logic behind it?
  • I'm going by what other articles have done there; e.g. 1990 New York Giants season, a long-standing Good Article, uses that order.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • That makes sense as to why. Wouldn't be how I'd do it, but not my article and certainly not a problem. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Game summaries

• I'm holding off on comments about these for now given some of the broader concerns above.
  • I've added the gamebook citations to these now.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• I've gone through and don't have any suggestions for the game summaries now that they've been appropriately sourced. Thanks for sourcing the overall descriptions that lead many of them.

Images

• Would suggest moving the McMahon picture to either Offseason, Arrivals, or Roster sections
  • I've been putting one picture near the top of these season articles to represent the whole article, so that's the thinking with using McMahon there (it was his only season with the Chargers).--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Ultimately this image meets GA criteria. It's just a rather low quality image to put at the top of the article which is why I comment. But your rationale makes a bunch of sense and I don't see an alternative image to suggest (there's no image for Henning for instance). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

@Harper J. Cole: can you confirm you're still interested in doing a GA review? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Yes, standing by for your comments, thanks for taking it on.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I've extended the lead a bit with more detail. For the game summaries, I'm using the gamebooks as the main source, as they have play-by-play details. I make a general reference to this at the start of the section, but could instead refer to each gamebook in the relevant section if that's better?--Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would suggest linking to individual gamebooks rather than the generic PFRA website is the way to go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Harper J. Cole I've added comments to the review above. While I flag some larger issues let me say that I enjoyed learning more about the Chargers season from this article - I hadn't thought about some of these players for a long time - and my concerns have to do the distinction between how a fan/talk radio show host might talk about the season and our responsibility of how to talk about it as an encyclopedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thanks, I've begun work on this, though it might take a few more days. I'll let you know when I'm ready for more comments.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Okay, I've gone through this now and hopefully improved the problem areas.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Harper J. Cole thanks for your patience. I anticipate getting back into this soon (perhaps even today). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Harper J. Cole: really great improvements to the article. The only thing that is giving me pause from passing it is being so reliant on the Escondido Times-Advocate. Being so reliant on any one newspaper would give me pause and in this case it's not even a newspaper that would be the paper of record for San Diego - that would be either San Diego Union or Tribune at that time. I notice that you have an LA Times source in there at one point. Anything we can do to just bring in another newspaper (or two) so we're not so reliant on one? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks - I've swapped out half the match reports from the Escondido Times-Advocate to the LA Times, which is a more significant paper. Other newspapers might mention Charger results in passing, but it's only the Californian ones that go into any detail, as they were a mediocre team at that time, not getting much national attention. I could use newspaper reports from the home states of their opponents, but these would relate the game mainly from the other team's perspective, so might not be as appropriate to this article.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No I think that works. Passing it now. Congrats! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)