Talk:Buddy Alliston/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 20:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to start reviewing this article in the next day or so and will be putting comments here over a day or two. MPJ-DK 20:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been a crazy week. I will start the review today. MPJ-DK 12:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox test

No DAB
No link issues
No copyright issues detected.

GAC6 Illustrated

Nope it is not, since it is a living person who's career predates cellphone camera technology etc. that is not totally surprising. A picture would be great to have but not a dealbreaker.

GAC5 Stable

Looks like it, in fact not a lot of activity in general so this is satisfied

GAC3 Broad in its coverage

Here I see a problem, BU Rob13 it's both a bit short and totally focused on football, nothing else - it's a "Football article" not a "biography" if you know what I mean? Everything mentioned here is in the context of his football career, nothing else and nothing since 1960? This is also one of the shortest articles I've ever seen at GAN, not that length, in general, is a problem but since it's also not "broad" in coverage then size becomes a bit of a concern. MPJ-DK 12:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPJ-DK: I believe it depends on how you define broad. I usually think of broad as covering all major aspects of what appears in reliable sources (since we can't cover anything that doesn't appear there). In that sense, this article is broad, since there simply isn't any coverage of Alliston's later life. He kind of drops off the face of the earth, as was pretty normal for even good college players who didn't have impressive pro careers back then. There are enduring mentions of him in papers after 1960, but only in the context of his success at Ole Miss, and never offering new information. The article does cover his military service, but ultimately most of the article will be about football because he is solely notable for his football career. I'm happy to add things, but I'd need specific suggestions based on information I can find in the sources. I'll see what I can do about expanding the information on military service - that might be available. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @MPJ-DK: Have you had a chance to think on this further? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - BU Rob13 sorry had a business trip come up and then a family thing surprised me. I will resume my review asap. MPJ-DK 20:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - No problem! Both of those sound way more important than anything on-wiki. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Source 1 only covers that he played fullback in high school, not what school it was?
- Whoops, added the offline source I got the school from. It has biographical information including high school. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3 does not have a title defined
- The little excerpt cited doesn't actually have a title, but I've added "Untitled" to prevent this from tripping an error. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source 4 does not state that 1952 was his rookie year, I I have not seen that covered in sources 1-3 either?
- In the second paragraph, the entire team is referred to as rookies. The Rebels fielded an A team (their actual team) and a B team (comprised entirely of rookies to gain experience), so the article is appropriately referring to everyone as a rookie. Let me know if this is not clear enough and I should seek a second source to support this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does the "Canadian Pro Football Encyclopedia" cover everything mentioned in the paragraph? Draft position etc?
- Yes, it does. The Canadian Pro Football Encyclopedia's most valuable section consists of brief listings of every player who's ever played in the CFL. This includes draft information, complete statistics for each season, etc. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is source 17 and 18 identical sources?
- Different page numbers, but I forgot the page on cite 17. Now added, thanks for the catch. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source 20 does not actually state that Allison played in the bowl game or was on the team
- Could you double check? The fifth paragraph states he made a kick during the game. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source 21 does not actually state he moved on to the Broncos?
- Whoops. That cite was only to the fact that he joined the Raiders. I'll add another cite that states he was on the Broncos roster. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes "pro-football-reference.com" a reliable source?
- This is something I've often wondered. It's used throughout many (most?) American football articles, so I've kind of taken its reliability as given. The one time I dug into this myself, I concluded it was reliable because its data came from the writers of the ESPN Pro Football Encyclopedia, and ESPN is a reliable source for sports. In any event, I've replaced it with NFL.com, which is more certainly reliable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source 23 does not actually source anything in the sentence Alliston played in eleven regular season games for the Broncos as a linebacker. except maybe that he was linebacker?
- I can't for the life of me remember way. Perhaps it was his position. In any event, removed, since the new NFL.com source covers everything in the sentence. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General question

Reviewing all the references Alliston's name really only comes up in passing, routine coverage - I don't know if there is a specific notability criteria for Football players? I'm just not seeing how Alliston would pass the General Notability Guideline, all coverage seems to be routine in coverage and never anything that could be considered "significant"? MPJ-DK 01:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPJ-DK: WP:NGRIDIRON covers it. Anyone who plays a single game in the Canadian Football League (or its immediate predecessors) is presumed notable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @MPJ-DK: I've responded to the above source review. Thank you again for your work on this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BU Rob13 - thank you for providing the appropriate guideline, we're good on notablity then and looking at the source work I think we're okay there as well. I will do a prose review when I get more than two minutes in front of the computer. MPJ-DK 02:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BU Rob13 - I fixed a couple of minor issues, but otherwise I have nothing else, so I'm going to pass this. MPJ-DK 18:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]