Talk:Isaiah Bond
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Jchall3 in topic Dubious tag added to "controversial" description of his catch in the 2023 Alabama vs Auburn football game
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2023 edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Grammar of the end passage of significance requires correction. Ready1$1$33 (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Dubious tag added to "controversial" description of his catch in the 2023 Alabama vs Auburn football game edit
The play is not widely considered controversial. For example both ESPN's article and CBS Sport's article make no mention of the play being controversial or potentially controversial. Furthermore the source provided in the article is from a newspaper that is geographically nearby Auburn (the losing team) and goes as far to pose the question of whether or not the play even should be controversial.
The claim of the play being controversial is therefore neither universally accepted or held by an objective 3rd party source. It is certainly far from factual as written in the article. Jchall3 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)