Talk:Randall Cunningham II

Good articleRandall Cunningham II 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2013Proposed deletionKept
September 13, 2013Articles for deletionKept
January 4, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 28, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that 4-time Pro Bowl quarterback Randall Cunningham's best high school high jump was 6 feet 9 inches (2.06 m), but Randall Cunningham II jumped 7 feet 3.25 inches (2.22 m) in his junior year?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Randall Cunningham II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 17:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Checklist

  • Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
  • Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
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
  • Disambig links:OK
  • External links:OK
  • Reference check: 3 issues
  1. Booker T. Washington heads to Las Vegas to square off against Bishop Gorman (info) [miamiherald.com] - Expiring link, please archive.
  2. Late touchdowns lead Booker T. Washington past Bishop Gorman in Las Vegas (info) [miamiherald.com] - Expiring link, please archive this one as well.
  3. Cunningham resigns as Silverado aide (info) [nevadapreps.com] - Removes www and changes path.

Comments: Alright, time for another review. This one looks fairly good at first impression, but if you don't mind, I'm going to be a bit nitpicky. The lead looks fine. Though there is no picture, not even a fair use claim, which makes it rather difficult to identify the subject for any readers. Please consider adding one. The parents section of the infobox also misses his mother's name. For the career, we skip right over the early life which is a bit of a concern for me given the fact we do not even know the age of the subject or where he is born. Some of the text's prose also reads awkwardly. "However, in August..." Why is "however" needed here? It works better to just restructure the sentence. Now, I don't understand NIAA rules, you'll need to explain why he was required to sit out his sophomore year in football and track. Just stating so really doesn't help me understand "why". The next sentence has little context "Then, he backed up Anu Solomon as a junior." who is Anu Solomon, a school, a person, the link's red, but I don't get it or why it is mentioned at all. Instead of TDs, you should use the full term. Is it relevant to have his dash speed "laser-timed"? Of curious note is the USA Today prediction of Cunningham's possible favorites... this is just speculation and shouldn't be included.

The section for his senior season is just written awkwardly. I can't pick out much of a reason why, but the descriptions and word flow was a bit disorienting. The infobox here also contains that averaging of height and weight from Scout and Rival, why? Though it also has no sources listed. Another issue for me.

For track, I don't care what his father's best high jump was... how's it relevant? Again some wording and prose choices get in the way here, but nothing too bad. I believe it is "Well-known" not "well known" because its not an adverb. Also, the next thing to stand out is the fact his brother died at the age of 2 in the family hot tub... why is this really important to bring up on the biography page? Personally, this seems like a little unusual and not really suitable, it came from a one line response that probably was not the best inclusion on an ESPN article and certainly something I wouldn't expect to see on Cunningham's bio. Its not really relevant to him, personally, and its improper weight. I'll place this on hold. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update, many of the issues are being resolved, thank you for doing it so quickly. Whenever I question something and a reasonable explaination or need is given, that is more to fix my own ignorance of the definition or the matter. Like the NIAA rules, I doubt many people unfamiliar with the topic would understand it. For laser-timed, the explanation here is more for my own understanding and a test to see if its really important or relevant. Thank you for all the work so far. Just let me know once you can address the rest. I'd really prefer if we can remove the part about the death of his brother, those details may be public, but I do not think it adds to the article or was of anything related to Cunningham's doing. Tragedy, need not always be cited or included just because it is sourced and the family most certainly would not want this on Wikipedia. For that reason, I believe BLP policy on this matter warrants its removal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the issues and questions have been resolved. While I do not like the matter of the brother's death being present, it is verifiable and not done an intrusive way. A good compromise given the situation. The details on the birth date do clarify and properly address an ambiguity in reliable sources, but it has been handled in a proper way. I'm going to pass this because I see no reason not to. Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]