Wikipedia

Talk:Keith Bostic (American football)

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Good articleKeith Bostic (American football) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
February 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 1, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that former Michigan Wolverines football player Keith Bostic was elected by his teammates as the toughest guy on the National Football League Houston Oilers defense?
Current status: Good article

Auto peer review edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply


Failed "good article" nomination edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 6, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail, needs a lot more organizing, it has a basic chronology, but in long narrative sections, needs assorted headings and subheadings for clarity, Article seems to be a collection of statistics with little narrative in between. Why should the reader "care" abut this individual?
2. Factually accurate?: Pass - as far at the article goes, well sourced.
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail, quite sparse compared to other sports figures biographies - is factually accurate and well references as far as it goes, but is choppy, appears to have gaps: When did he retire, why? What else should we know about this individual?
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Fail, insufficient images


When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Montanabw(talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interesting.... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh, when the review was first posted, it said that the article passed all aspects, but the result was a fail. It's been fixed since then. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago21 comments2 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Keith Bostic (American football)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Heh. Forgot to start the review page. Here's the review...

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    short choppy prose and some MOS glitches with the lead
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    although getting rid of the informatino on the nephew would be a good thing
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Specific concerns

  • Lead - the first sentence of the second paragraph is clunky. Suggest rewording.
  • Lead - Second paragraph, second sentence Try removing "once" from "... and Bostic was once named first team All-Big Ten." which should improve the flow.
  • College - first three sentences all start with "he". Suggest rewording at least one, better to do two. Also, lots more of the rest of the sentences start "he
  • You have his birth date and place info in the lead but not in the body of the article. Everything in the lead should be in the body of the article.
  • Need to explain what USFL is, and give the full name before using the abbreviation.
  • Need to explain Wild Card game.
  • Please put in "work=Houston Chronicle" for all those Houston Chronicle sources? I don't care as much who the publisher is, but the name of the newspaper that published the information is important.
  • For the other references, if it's a published newspaper, etc. use the work field in {{cite news}} to get the title of the paper/journal italicised.
  • A LOT of short choppy sentences, that might be combined with neighbors to help the prose feel less choppy. While you don't want all long convoluted sentences, you don't want all short ones either. The second paragraph of Glanville era is really bad for this.
  • Personal section, can you combine the first and second paragraphs to help the prose flow?
  • Is he married? Whta'd he do after football? I don't think the information on his nephew is really needed in THIS article, suggest losing it.
    • I could not find anything else about his family other than his son and nephew. Since when this failed before I did not have any family info, I thought adding these two things might bring it up to GA. I kind of think if his nephew did something notable, it should be mentioned. It helps fill in the family info a bit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
      • the problem is by basically only mentioning his conviction, you're making it kinda WP:COATRACKish. Mention the nephew played sports, which gives some connection with the uncle, but the conviction doesn't have any real connection to his uncle unless his uncle was in the car too. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
        • I have expanded it to give proper weight to athletics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
          • I'm still not happy. I realise you think we need personal life information, but a nephew is a bit of a stretch. Since there is so little available on his immediate family, you're trying to reach to fulfill some imagined need for ANYTHING to fill the space. However, if the information isn't available, it's not available, and it won't hurt GA if you can't include what just isn't there. Another concern is that the personal information isn't in the lead, and then a big concern is the BLP issues for the nephew. I'd rather you just cut any mention of the nephew. Unless there is some reason to suppose Keith raised the boy, there isn't really any good connection to Keith. Leave the mention of the son in, but include it in the lead ... something like "His son played college football also." would be enough. Cut the nephew entirely, lack of personal information won't keep the article from GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
            • Isn't this a double standard of sorts. We always mention nephews when they are relevant. Take Bob Chappuis and Rick Volk or Barry Bonds and Rosie Bonds to name the first two that pop into my head. Also, I think the Alou brothers, the Stasnys, etc use such relationships. This is stuff that is commonly used to fill out the family section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
            • I don't know, I didn't review those articles. If you would like to take it up on the GAN talk page, that's fine. I did consult Malleus and Geometry Guy before reaching a decision, too. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • What makes http://web.archive.org/web/20070516153117/http://www.thisistheusfl.com/1983usflterritorialassignments.htm a reliable source?
  • It's a bit jargon heavy. A bit more explanations wouldn't hurt the feel of the prose.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keith Bostic (American football). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Keith Bostic (American football). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Bostic_(American_football)&oldid=1206387807"