Talk:Sean McVay effect/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 21:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Flowerkiller1692: and @Newtothisedit:, I'll start this review.

Copy-vios

• Only quotes come up on Earwig
• A handful of spotchecks find nothing exciting

Sourcing

• A manual check finds that all the links are active and archived.
• No immediate concerns about the reliability of anything

Images

• Only thing of note is File:Sean McVay.png. Appears to be a Youtube screengrab that is CC-BY 2.0. Should be fine for now.

Prose

• MOS:LEAD None of these statements are particularly controversial and all seem to be cited elsewhere. Is citing them in the intro necessary?

 Done Moved the sources to the body – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Super Bowl era. 'era' implies this is a time frame. either fix the link or clarify

"(1966–present)" There it is!! Please add to intro. I add these notes as I go.

 Done added to intro – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• 'high-powered offense' WP:PUFFERY, I'm not seeing any indication this is a sport-specific term

 Done changed to say "McVay quickly turned the Rams into the league's highest-scoring offense, resulting in the Rams becoming perennial title contenders and eventual champions (in Super Bowl LVI)" – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• 'offensive backgrounds' no explanation on what this actually means, comes off as rather vague criteria. Add to background or link to an appropriate article.

 Done changed from "with offensive background" to "specialized in offensive strategy". There is a whole section of the Strategy of American football page that talks about what offensive strategy is – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• flurry of hires in the mold of McVay un-encyclopedic wording, please rephrase. flurry is almost bordering on WP:PUFFERY since 4 new highers isn't a particularly large number.

 Done changed to "had several hires in the mold of McVay" – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• With the exception of Gase, all of these coaches were alleged to be hired due to their connections... run on sentance

 Done changed to "Nearly all of these coaches were alleged to be hired due to their connections with McVay" – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• From 2017–2019, 75% of available.. switching from percentage to fraction, difficult to follow the actual trend.

 Done – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This page uses a bit too much football jargon overall, making it difficult for the non-football enthusiasts. It's nothing major and honestly, the page just needs a bit of clean up before passing to GA. I made a few CEs/clarifications of my own so please review them when you can. Putting on hold. Etrius ( Us) 21:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus: made appropriate edits. Let me know what else needs to be reworded. – Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Excellent!!! I gave the article a second review. Article passes at this time, congrats on the GA!!! Both of you!!! Etrius ( Us) 03:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yes

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Article passes GA review. Good work!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.