1992 San Diego Chargers season has been listed as one of the
Sports and recreation good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 15, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs) 15:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Harper J. Cole:, @ Sturmvogel 66:, I'm seeing material in the game summaries that is written more like a journalistic account than an encyclopedic summary, usually in the first couple sentences. Beyond style, though, I'm seeing material not found in the sources given. For example, in the Week 8 (Broncos) game, it starts with "a controversial interception" but provides absolutely no source which indicates the interception was controversial - all three citations are pro-football-reference and are just tables of stats. Another example: Week 13 (Raiders) describes a "pair of controversial plays", a Harmon non-catch in the end zone and a possible fumble ruled incomplete. But the only source given for that week, the North County Times, doesn't appear to describe either play with those details in its article, either in the clip from page 19 or where it's continued on C-3. Each week, the game descriptions are consistently more detailed and/or use more opinionated language than the sources. I think this issue needs to be addressed - let me know your thoughts. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 13:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
1992 San Diego Chargers season has been listed as one of the
Sports and recreation good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 15, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs) 15:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Harper J. Cole:, @ Sturmvogel 66:, I'm seeing material in the game summaries that is written more like a journalistic account than an encyclopedic summary, usually in the first couple sentences. Beyond style, though, I'm seeing material not found in the sources given. For example, in the Week 8 (Broncos) game, it starts with "a controversial interception" but provides absolutely no source which indicates the interception was controversial - all three citations are pro-football-reference and are just tables of stats. Another example: Week 13 (Raiders) describes a "pair of controversial plays", a Harmon non-catch in the end zone and a possible fumble ruled incomplete. But the only source given for that week, the North County Times, doesn't appear to describe either play with those details in its article, either in the clip from page 19 or where it's continued on C-3. Each week, the game descriptions are consistently more detailed and/or use more opinionated language than the sources. I think this issue needs to be addressed - let me know your thoughts. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 13:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)