# Talk:1992 San Diego Chargers season

This review is transcluded from Talk:1992 San Diego Chargers season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)

The one image is appropriately licensed, but the article badly needs more
Link defensive coordinator, offensive coordinator, tight ends coach, training camp, draft pick, defensive line, offensive line, defensive backfield on first use. I'm sensing a theme here! Go through the article thoroughly and link all player and coach positions, etc. on first use.
I'll come back to this once that's done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66 I've gone through and hopefully linked the major terms. Finding images for 90s players is harder than for the 80s, as the copyright rules that allow untrademarked trading cards to be used only extend to 1989 (if I'm understanding them correctly). I added one more, though. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Move the link for head coach to the lede
Still need links for kickoff, punt, down
Add a hyphen for pass rushing ability as it's a compound adjective--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66 Sorry, I only just saw this. Amended now. Harper J. Cole (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


### Question on sourcing
@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)

I will confess that I focused more on the stuff outside the games than the games themselves and will withdraw the nom from the contest. I'd prefer to give Harper time to address the issues before starting an GAR and will thoroughly check his progress. If I'm not satisfied, I'll initiate the GAR myself and chalk it up as a lesson learned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I've gone through these now. The game summaries use official gamebooks as a source, which contain play-by-play data and account for some of the extra detail. Citations for the controversial plays are now added. I've taken out the first sentence from most of the game summaries, which were meant to provide a quick summary of the whole game but do give a journalistic appearance.
I probably should have checked this article a bit more closely before submitting it. I had been in my personal GA queue for longer than I realised, with most of it written in 2021 before I had as much experience of the process. Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Harper J. Cole, thanks for the changes. It would probably be good to mark the gamebooks as (subscription required) following the guideline at this link. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
They already show as subscription required, I think? Harper J. Cole (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
They show the little locked symbol for subscription required.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)