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

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review.

The article barely passes, since it has some serious issues that ought to be addressed soon. It should be monitored closely, and if it deteriorates further, the status will have to be assessed again.

• There were 9 dead links. I managed to track down some and get it down to 5 (mostly nfl.com), which is not ideal, but out of 95 it's acceptable (one of these was also double covered.)
• The lead is too short for an article this size.
• The history section, on the other hand, is too long, so that it's almost "going into uneccessary details". It should much rather be made into a sub-article titled "History of..."
• The last paragraph of "2002–09" needs references. The same also goes for "Since 2009" (and please don't use "the Avs"!) This is what usually happens to articles on contemporary issues after they've been quality checked - others add more information without concern for upholding the level of quality. If this trend continues, the GA status could be in danger. Lampman (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]