Talk:Ed Carberry

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ed Carberry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: JTtheOG (talk · contribs) 00:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: The Robot Parade (talk · contribs) 02:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll review this. @Rollinginhisgrave: would you like me to go ahead and start reviewing now, and you can give me comments on the process as I go? What do you think I should start with? --^The Robot Parade 02:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Having you go ahead and start the review sounds like a good idea The Robot Parade. Why don't we start by checking the article against the WP:GAFAIL criteria? To check for copyvio, you will need to perform a spot check, which User:Anne drew/Veracity can help with. Some more details on completing a spot check are at Wikipedia:Spot checking sources, and an example can be seen at Talk:Harmony in Ultraviolet/GA1. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Source Spot Check

This table checks 10 passages from throughout the article (14.7% of 68 total passages). These passages contain 12 inline citations (11.9% of 101 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. --^The Robot Parade 16:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Early life and playing career
He was elected to the school's student senate as a freshman in 1973.
9		newspapers.com
Coaching career
as well as an assistant football coach for Los Angeles Harbor.
10	b	newspapers.com
15		newspapers.com
"It felt like I had come full circle, coming from a player to a coach under Marijon. It was something I always wanted to do because he's such a great coach. Ninety percent of what I am as a coach comes from playing for and coaching with Marijon," he said.
6	d	newspapers.com
Monte Vista once again compiled a 12–1 record in 1999, but lost in the CIF-SDS title game.
25	a	newspapers.com			Citation confirms the CIF-SDS loss, but not the 12-1 record. Should be an easy fix.
In an effort to attract untapped talent from south Riverside County, he hired assistants with ties to the area and moved some of the team's practices to the school's more centralized Menifee campus to increase exposure. "This gives us a chance to get out in the middle of the district and see and be seen," said Carberry. "We wanted to take the show on the road." The move was praised by athletic director John Chambers.
32		sandiegouniontribune.com	web.archive.org
In his first season at the helm, the Jaguars finished with a 4–6 record. However, they won three of their last four games, including a 20–17 upset of previously undefeated Antelope Valley in their season finale.
38		eastcountysports.com	web.archive.org		I may be wrong, but looking over the source it seems Southwestern won their last two games going to a 3-6 record with a cancelled game against Mt. San Jacinto. Am I missing something? @The Robot Parade: Thanks for catching this! JTtheOG (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
as well as a victory over Santa Monica in the American Bowl.
46	a	smmirror.com	web.archive.org
He was named the American Mountain Conference Coach of the Year and the CCCFCA Region V Coach of the Year.
47		scfafootball.prestosports.com
48		scfafootball.prestosports.com
Administrative career
In mid-1981, Carberry was hired as the athletic director (AD) for Mary Star of the Sea High School, allowing incumbent AD Joe Radisich to focus on his head football coaching duties.
12	b	newspapers.com
He served in the position until 1982, when he was hired as the head football coach for St. Anthony High School.
10	d	newspapers.com

@JTtheOG: I've given the spot-check on sources and just have a few comments. Ping me when you've looked this over, and I can give the full rundown with the checklist below! @Rollinginhisgrave: Does this look good so far? How would you suggest handling the MoS sections, because its a very intimidating part for me haha. --^The Robot Parade 16:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @The Robot Parade, great work on the spot check. I believe I can see the 12-1 record in the lines "After never trailing by more than 14 points during a 12-0 run that got them to the title game..." they lost. So, 12-1.

As to going forward, it's best not to wait for the nominator to complete points if you can help it before moving onto the next GA criterion. The best reviews happen in one swift motion, appearing complete for the nominator to action immediately, and don't drag out which can happen quite easily. The MOS is not particularly important at GA, but a good summary of the requirements is at Wikipedia:Good article reviewing guide, which is organized quite intuitively. Most of what I am doing as I review an article's prose is looking for anything that is unclear or ambiguous to flag, and checking the sources for any claims that seem fuzzy or subjective or controversial (i.e., not whether the score was 5-6 or 4-6).

If I can ramble about reviewer philosophy for a moment: fix anything uncontroversial like typos or very basic grammar yourself rather than bother the nominator, try to keep any points not required under the GA criterion in a "suggestions" section if you mention them at all, and try to make your feedback as un-nitpicky as you can. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 16:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice @Rollinginhisgrave:, I genuinely appreciate it. And thank you for catching that on the 12-1 reference. I've listed general/prose comments below. Please let me know if there is anything I've missed or haven't quite covered. --^The Robot Parade 22:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Very good work. Maybe when you get to a review with images, give me a ping and I'll take a look. I'll run over it and give anything else I would have pointed out:

• taking over what The San Diego Union-Tribune described as a "once-moribund program" So it wasn't moribund by this point?

@Rollinginhisgrave: I see your point. Looking at the two years prior to his arrival, it seems like the team won a combined three games, which Carberry tripled in his first year alone. I'm not too sure how to re-word that though, so I've removed the whole quote. The playoff factoid in the next sentence should paint the picture accurately enough. JTtheOG (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• Worth introducing the teams, as I trip over who the Monarchs are when first mentioned, and have to take from context whether this is the Monte Vista HS's team

 Done

• "but did not receive a bowl game berth." needs an inline cite.

 Done

• As a suggestion for writing, "at the helm" appears three times, and is probably too informal for an encyclopedic style. As with winningest.

 Done

• Note to TRP, when I see "notably", I check the source since this should not normally be used under MOS:EDITORIAL. Checking the sources, this seems like a more impartial tone could be accomplished by attributing commentary on the incidents significance.
• I should probably note that when as I finished the review, I had a quick look for an image that could be included, checking Google Images and a filtered YouTube search. I didn't see anything and wouldn't usually make a note, but when it works, it's helpful. Out of scope for a GA review.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait, marking as a success! Thank you so much for your assistance @Rollinginhisgrave:, I feel much better prepared going forward. --^The Robot Parade 19:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments on Prose

• where he played football under legendary head coach Marijon Ancich The source listed doesn't describe him as such, making this feel like MOS:PUFFERY.

 Done

• Carberry went on to play college football for Cerritos Are there any more details out there on his playing career? If not, the prose should at least mention that he was a center.

 Done

• despite the future Heisman winner rushing for 316 yards Needs to be clarified for a broader audience (Which Heisman winner?).

 Done

Other Comments

• Carberry was inducted into the St. Paul High Hall of Fame in 2015, the Monte Vista High Hall of Fame in 2017, and the Southern California Football Association Hall of Fame and California Community College Football Coaches Association Hall of Fame, both in 2025. While I don't believe this is required, I think generally information like this should be included in the main body of the prose rather than only in the lead.

• I have a general feeling that this article uses too many quotes. Earwig gives back a 44.4% likely hood of copyvio because of some of these quotes, and it feels like WP:OVERQUOTE in some parts. Is there any chance some of of the quotations could be converted into more prose?

• got in one play on a kickoff. This phrasing in particular seems to be straight from the source, I would edit.

I've removed the phrasing, as well as part of the quote. I'll see what else I can trim for a better score. Though a large part of that, as seen here, also seems to be names of institutions, awards, competitions, etc. JTtheOG (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• Source [3] is a link to a Twitter post, which can be unreliable. Is there no other potential source for this online?

 Done

• Are there any potential images for inclusion on the page? I feel like even a photo of any of his teams/players from the era could work for inclusion. Obviously no worries if not, I think the article works fine without.

I've added a picture of his former quarterback who is still active professionally. However, I'm certainly open to any suggestions for the caption. JTtheOG (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@JTtheOG: I appreciate the work you've put in to address the concerns, especially the inclusion of the Luis Perez photo! After reviewing the new edits and additions, everything looks good. @Rollinginhisgrave: I'm pretty satisfied with the results of the review so far, would this be the point where I close the review, or do you have anymore thoughts? --^The Robot Parade 17:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not quite done yet! Most likely by today. JTtheOG (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh! Woops! Sorry, I've been so busy I haven't been able to check in-real-time I thought you were already done, haha. Ping me when you're ready! --^The Robot Parade 18:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@The Robot Parade: Nevermind, I think that should do it now. It was just one stray "notably" which I've removed. Thanks for your work as well! JTtheOG (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The Robot Parade, this should be okay to close if you have checked the changes and are satisfied with their execution. Well done with this first review! Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 23:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·