Talk:Pittsburgh Riverhounds SC/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 12:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I am a WIki Cup participant, I have my own GAN (CMLL World Tag Team Championship) and I also have a Feature Article (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my review but it would be appreciated.

I am about to start my review of this article, normally I provide my input in bits and pieces over a day or two so expect running updates for a while. MPJ-US 12:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Toolbox[edit]

So getting the obvious out of the way first, I am checking everything in the GA Toolbox

Peer Review

Lead is too short, WP:Lead states that an article of this size should have about 3-4 paragraphs
Captions - the info box image does not have a caption or an alt text
The Gallery of fans has no captions nor alt texts
The Gallery of stadiums has no captions nor alt texts

Copyright Violations

The tool list two possible violations at 47.6% and 46.8%

The timeline table seems to take verbatim info from web.archive.org/web/20060529120112/http://www.riverhounds.com/history.html and web.archive.org/web/20020815194040/http://www.riverhounds.com/archives/timeline.htm I would say that you should reword those a little

Disambig Links

Y no problems

External Links

The following references are dead

13
5
45
48
46
55
99
118

Probably dead

33
124
143

Connection issues

9
50
103
usopencup.com

The following references changes url, consider updating the links to prevent link rot

28
32
31
35
57
58
68
79
114
123
134
133
136
167
oursportscentral.com

This article is huge, there is really too much detail in the season sections since there are sub articles for those. I am putting this on hold until the 2013 through 2016 sections are cut down to a summary since they already have separate history articles. And I would suggest a similar approach to the last two sections of the history as well. I will leave it on hold for 7 days for the work on summarizing those sections to at least begin - not necessarily end in that point in time as long as work is going on.

@Gri3720: - Status: Hold for summarizing and addressing the reference link issues. I can pick up the review again if these issues get addressed. MPJ -US 13:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gri3720: This has been on hold for 7 days with no sign of improvements being made on the article. I am going to fail the article, but at least you have a list of issues to work on if you feel like submitting it for GA again. MPJ-US 14:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]