Talk:Bob Adams (American football)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

1(a) ✅

1(b) ✅

2(a) ✅

2(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons ❌ I think more research into his football career is necessary. The infobox, for example, states that he was in the Steelers from 1969–1971 but the text of the biography states "He became a member of the Scientology organization in 1973, while playing for the Pittsburgh Steelers." Perhaps the final date in the infobox is in error, however, the Steelers in 1972 and 1973 appeared in the AFC play-offs, and this is not mentioned in the biography. There certainly are plenty of sources written about the Steelers from that era, and it would be interesting for the reader to find out about how he fit into the dynasty-making team and what happened that caused him to leave for New England. Instead, the football section seems overly-concerned with Scientology and doesn't do justice to his notability as a football player.

2(c) ✅

3(a) ✅

3(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). ❌ There seems to be some problems with how this article is structured because of an WP:UNDUE focus on the religion and status of this particular football player within Scientology. The facts associated with his religion are covered in incredible detail while his football career is mysteriously under-developed. Was he a good player, a bad player, a great player? What were his strengths and weaknesses? Someone from WikiProject American football should be able to help.

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. ❌ (marginal) I think for the reasons outlined above, this article marginally fails the WP:NPOV test due to excessive weight placed on Bob Adams' religion. I am interested to learn about him as a professional football player independent of his religion (after all, a lot of readers will simply not care about his religion and just want to know about his football career and he passes notability independent of his role in religion). We need to accommodate this perspective. Additionally, is it standard to use "Scientology Organization" as opposed to just "Scientology"? It really stands out in my reading of the article as a possible neologism. For example, " He represented the Scientology organization at the 2006 conference of the Religion Newswriters Association in Utah." could just be written as "He represented Scientology at the 2006 conference of the Religion Newswriters Association in Utah."

5) ✅

5(a) ✅

5(b) ✅

Reviewer: jps (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)