# Talk:2015 Chicago Bears season

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)

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)
Disambiguations: No links found.
Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.


### Checking against the GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
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
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2015 Chicago Bears season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20122721104600/http://www.chicagobears.com/team/transactions.html to http://www.chicagobears.com/team/transactions.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 Chicago Bears season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222113048/http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/56697/CHI_Gamebook.pdf to http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/56697/CHI_GameBook.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222113048/http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/56697/CHI_Gamebook.pdf to http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/56697/CHI_Gamebook.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This article sits at a readable prose size of 102, over what is recommended for any article, and a lot more than what is needed for an article with a narrow focus like this. I suggest splitting off the game summaries into their own article and just summarising them here. I would be happy if there are other ideas or if someone wants to trim other sections. I feel the length of this article fails the focusc criteria for Good Articles and it would be a shame to delist it because of the length. @ZappaOMati: AIRcorn (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: I'm not a fan of splitting the game summaries since there has never been any precedent of that. Best I could suggest is trimming the opening game preview paragraphs of said summaries (the ones that feature sentences like "The Bears should...") since those seem to be talking from a speculative point of view about the upcoming game, or at the very least, just removing those parts and retaining others like all-time record and statistics. Works fine for sports websites wanting to hype up fans, doesn't really seem to read too well when talking from an encyclopedic standpoint. Same could be said for the statistics section, particularly the position reviews since some of those can probably be moved to the relevant player/coach articles (like the quarterbacks coach's page when talking about the QBs). That's really all I can think of so far. Zappa⚡Mati 16:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
We could set our own precedent. I don't think I have come across a more detailed season article so in some ways this is precedent in itself. It has obviously taken a lot of work and I would hate for that to be lost. What I was thinking of is a list type article List of Chicago Bears 2015 season games, which would consist of all the preseason, game summaries and a lead. We could then trim like you say above. However, it is your article so I will let you decide the best approach. AIRcorn (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Compared to other NFL teams, the Bears articles seem to have a longer focus on the off-season than that of other NFL teams. Theoallen1 (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with ZappaOMatic: the article should be trimmed, not split. Was this what you were going for as well, @Theoallen1:? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed that it has a "too long" yellow banner since Feb 2024. I agree with this banner, as I think the article goes into unnecessary detail about every game played that season and their statistics. Meanwhile, there is no information about the legacy of this season, including how the season impacted future seasons (did the team try to rebuild after losing? Did they continue a tragectory to build a competative team? Was this part of a stagnation period?)
Should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)


### 2015 Chicago Bears season
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending 
It has a "too long" yellow banner since Feb 2024. I agree with this, as the article goes into unnecessary detail about every game in the season. Meanwhile, there is no information about the legacy of this season, including how it impacted future seasons (did the team try to rebuild after losing? Did they continue a trajectory to build a competitive team? Was this part of a stagnation period?) Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree that it's too long (the GA reviewed version was already 17K words). I'm wary of getting into "legacy" turning into a WP:COATRACK, when History of the Chicago Bears or subsequent season pages (e.g. 2015 Chicago Bears season) would be better options.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Regarding legacy: I think the article should link to History of the Chicago Bears, but should also put this season in the context of the team's history. This article can go into more detail on that aspect than the history article. I would not consider it a coatrack to add that information to this article, as long as it stays focused on this season's legacy. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
As long as such "legacy" is based on secondary reliable sources making the connection.  I've seen too many championship season (not applicable here) articles that go on and on about subsequent seasons. A lot of seasons are just "plain" seasons and not a catalyst.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)