Talk:Keith Bostic (American football)

Keith 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
Date	Process	Result
February 6, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 25, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

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

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.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

National Football League Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

College football Low‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Auto peer review

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

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: Can't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

Both from article titles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

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

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

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)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
short choppy prose and some MOS glitches with the lead
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
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
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:

Specific concerns

Lead - the first sentence of the second paragraph is clunky. Suggest rewording.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead - Second paragraph, second sentence Try removing "once" from "... and Bostic was once named first team All-Big Ten." which should improve the flow.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need to explain what USFL is, and give the full name before using the abbreviation.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need to explain Wild Card game.
- Is the link sufficient.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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?
- Ref swapped.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit jargon heavy. A bit more explanations wouldn't hurt the feel of the prose.
- What language is unusually jargony (for a football article).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was more meant to help towards an FAC if you were planning on that. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll go there right now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have changed the article per this feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112175906/http://stats.ath.umich.edu/football/footstart.php to http://stats.ath.umich.edu/football/footstart.php

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: 5 June 2024).

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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]