Talk:2015 Chicago Bears season

2015 Chicago Bears 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: April 21, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

National Football League Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago Bears (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago Bears, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chicago BearsWikipedia:WikiProject Chicago BearsTemplate:WikiProject Chicago BearsChicago Bears articles Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Chicago Bears#Other rivals|annual preseason opponent]] The anchor (#Other rivals) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Chicago Bears season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  20:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   It would be good if the lead could mention what months the season took place in

   I done some minor cleaning in the Front office section

   Too many red links in the body. It wouldn't hurt cutting down a few

   The Undrafted free agents section could do with being split into two paragraphs, to improve prose flow

   " Tennessee Titans vice president of player personnel" - Tennessee Titans' vice president of player personnel

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No original research found.

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall the prose is well written and the article is definitely comprehensive enough to meet the criteria, so I'll pass this now. JAGUAR  10:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]