Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 GA Review  
28 comments  













Talk:Bert Bell/GA1




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

< Talk:Bert Bell

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 03:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a(prose): b(MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a(reference section): 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:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


General
Okay, I will rewrite Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long one, so will take some time to complete...

Okay I rewrote that first paragraph. That first paragraph was atrocious. I deleted a 1000 bytes from it. The whole Eagles section is a total disaster. I need major research there. It's just really bad. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
The genius fixed this. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The genius fixed this. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
User:Go Phightins fixed this.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
University of Pennsylvania
Early Career
OK, I will have to reevaluate the syntax.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. I will continue with the review tomorrow. Regards, Resolute 03:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

Philadelphia Eagles
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on personal life section. Absolutely disagree, with emotion, to give him any credit for being a published author. 'The Story of Professional Football in Summary' is not a real book. It's propaganda and marketing in response to the U.S. Congress investigating the NFL. Everything else he wrote is marketing in favor of the NFL or to counteract negative publicity. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pittsburgh Steelers
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Complicated, I will have to reevaluate.
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, no biggie, seems like personal preference. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NFL Commissioner
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NFL-AAFC merger
Agreed, however, this is a poor research problem or sources may be unclear. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing of the NFL
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy and honors
Overall

I'm going to place on hold, as I think most issues should be easily addressable. Regards, Resolute 03:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with pretty much everything; if I didn't do something, I left a note in the edit summary as to why. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, thanks! Hopefully Ijustreadbooks returns with their sources and can add the final pieces of context you couldn't, but I don't see anything that was removed holding up this nomination. As such, I am passing the nomination. Cheers! Resolute 23:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Yes I will return and we will have to go through the whole process again. I only have one hangup with what Phightins did. But I can't believe he did what he did so fast (he must be a genius), I thought it would take me 6months. The latter part of the Philadelphia Eagles section is, from a research standpoint, a complete disaster. I am going to have to get bloody and go down to Philly and dig stuff up with new sources. I know the sources exist and I know where they are. I just have to access those sources. Forget about the other complaints (those are for great editors and writers to handle), the missing story between 1937 and 1939 is just a total disaster. Some people are great writers and editors, I am not. I will get that research done.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for anything that happened outside of 1937-1939, I just might have deleted a citation accidentally. I have them all ...somewhere. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To get this puppy up to FA by next Super Bowl would be great, although I do not have the skills to do it an as editor. But I'll worry about that later. First order of business is to handle that missing timeframe between 1937 and 1939. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you need any help, feel free to ping me at my talk. Go Phightins! 19:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a disaster. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bert_Bell/GA1&oldid=578496661"





This page was last edited on 24 October 2013, at 03:14 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki