Talk:Cato June

unsourced IP content
An IP added "Cato married his wife Nicole in July 12, 2008, and the couple has one child Cato Nicolas June. " among other garbage. This was unsourced and has been removed.
 * I found a source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Length
This article is ridiculously long. 200 something sources and a book's worth of content on a decent cover 2 linebacker? Give me a break.► Chris Nelson Holla! 03:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the subject of this article, there is space to go into great detail that one might not on another subject. There is little reason to remove content. It is only 28 KB of readable prose, which is well under the 60KB threshold.  It would not help the reader to erase things.  If at some point his article becomes too long stuff can be chopped.  Yes there are other more notable Linebackers in the history of football, but most of them don't have me as a fan to research their life. Thus, their articles may remain at start class forever.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to go in making changes, I'm just saying, it's way more content than is relevant. That's for sure. I would guess an article with this much length just makes it harder for the common reader to learn about the subject, becaus they have to pick through so much.► Chris Nelson Holla! 05:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is up at WP:GAC. Someone will review it and make a decision. You can go through my WP:GAs.  This is how I research University of Michigan athletes.  I find all the facts I can from the public record and assimilate them into a unified article.  It is no different here.  If you want a complete story on the guy, here it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chris this article is WAY too long for such a minor player.--Yankees10 16:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've had my disagreements with Chris in the past (before my year-long hiatus), but I can't help but agree with him. 247 sources for a player that I've honestly never heard of before? He's a one-time Pro Bowler, one-time All-Pro, and All-Big Ten "honorable mention".
 * The page is 133 KB long, and his intro is 4 paragraphs long! According to WP:LS, "Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article." How is this possible when you can't even read the entire introduction? Also, "editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole." I think it's fair to say that this article is an example of this.
 * And that's just the lead. (Btw, I found this page after following User talk:Chrisjnelson, which is still on my watchlist.)  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah where did he get the 28 KB from?► Chris Nelson Holla! 17:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fix your monobook so you can determine prosesize. Check at the help desk.  They taught me how to install it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Minor player is a bit of an exaggeration. He is not a special teamer. He has placed in the top 10 in the NFL in tackles one season and been a pro-Bowler another. Basically, counting citations is never an argument. They don't factor into length and result from having every claim cited. In terms of length, most serious editors know what counts toward WP:SIZE is readable prose. 133KB is an irrelevant number because it is only 28 KB readable prose. What matters is do you think there are facts in the article that the reader who wants to learn about this subject would be better not knowing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, size is one thing. If the page itself is below the 30KB recommended threshold, that's one thing. But that's usually for articles on people like Barack Obama or the Dalai Lama. You know, people that are truly relevant. In fact, Dalai Lama is only 39KB long, while Barack Obama is 153KB. This article is 133KB in overall data. Does it make any sense for an article about an NFL player who has one Pro Bowl and one All-Pro selection to be nearly the same size as the 44th President of the United States, and the first to be African-American? It doesn't to me. This article is 3x as long as Dalai Lama is, and almost twice as long as the current Dalai Lama (85KB).


 * Your argument is that it doesn't exceed the threshold set by WP:SIZE, but this article is tremendously long for the stature of the person it is about. And it doesn't have to be. 4 paragraphs? The lead itself has nearly 500 words, which is literally an essay. After somebody reads the intro, nobody's gonna want to read the rest of the article.


 * Article size is one thing. But is all of it necessary? To compare to a football player, Brett Favre, a player of so much prestige and offseason controversey, is only 62KB long. It's half the size!  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In comparison to Obama, you are making a faulty argument because he has twenty or thirty articles on wikipedia and probably tens of MBs of content. Please stop measuring anything other than readable prose because it does not matter. Feel free to WP:AFD this article if you truly feel he is not relevant or notable.  I don't know about Dalai Lama, but several of the articles mentioned in his article are probably forked content. It is not my fault that Brett Favre has no fans or at least none who care about him enough to write him a good WP article.  You are free to write 60 KB about him if you like, but that does not mean June can not have 28KB.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize Favre is a WP:GA. You are making the argument that you should remove X from article X because articles Y and Z are of certain lengths.  The argument that is relevant is do claims x1, x2 and x3 in article X belong in an article about subject X. I concede that June, is less notable than Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison or Reggie Wayne is for Colts fans or than Derrick Brooks is to Bucs fans.  Tell their WP biographers to get on the ball. Don't hate on June.  June is notable enough to have a 30KB article regardless of who else does.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is, there cannot be this much relevant information about the subject, given what we know about him. He was a good college player and had some decent years in Indianapolis because of the system, but he's not a star and never will be. In fact, he'll probably bounce around a few more teams before struggling to find a job and fading into oblivion. He's just not worth this much text, he hasn't done enough in his life and he's not that interesting.► Chris Nelson Holla! 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is up for review at WP:GAC. Anyone can assume responsibility for the review and open a dialogue about content specifics. However, if you just want to sit there and pick a fight about whether this guy is a great athlete or not, I would prefer not to waste my time. The article is NPOV, IMO. It's content is sourced to WP:RS. What else do you want to pick a fight about?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that this page should be deleted or shortened in length because other pages are smaller sizes. I'm arguing that there is a whole bunch of stuff in this article that really doesn't need to be there.


 * For example, "In college, June and Hobson were roommates. They were known for having Madden 2003 for Playstation in an apartment known as 'The Stadium'. At Tampa, he had two-time defending Madden Bowl champion Alex Smith as a teammate and June, who is known as a vocal player, voiced an interest in playing him. As a professional, June became an avid fantasy football owner, and he eventually started playing in a league only for NFL players. You have eight sources on the fact that he plays video games and fantasy football! You have nearly a whole paragraph on where his name comes and information on his great, great grandfather, who nobody cares about at all. You essentially have information on every single game he played in the NFL.


 * There is no reason why a player who isn't that well known, like this guy, has to have an article this long. What has he done as an NFL player? He's received two honors as a pro in six seasons. He is notable for the fact that he's an NFL player, but other than that, there's nothing else. You can pick the most famous player ever in the history of the NFL, and he probably only has at most half of what is on here. That just means you're overdoing it here.
 * You may not care about June's interest in video games, but the United States Military does. Read the article to understand why it is relevant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give a logical reason why this player is so notable that you felt it necessary to essentially write his whole life story?  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 19:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, what you are asking is why I chose to write a likely WP:GA about a Michigan athlete, when everybody around here knows that is what I do. When I take over an article, I almost always try to make it as complete as possible.  He was the greatest athlete in his state in high school so I wrote about it.  He played Big Ten Football so I wrote about it.  He played in the NFL. I apologize that I did not spend this much time on your own personal favorite players.  You are free to create a 30KB article about anyone you would like to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't focus on the one video game thing (even though ksy is right). Ksy is making a lot of good points about a lot of irrelevant or superfluous content. I think the fact this article is your baby is clouding your judgment on some of its relevance.► Chris Nelson Holla! 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think KSY is quite wrong at that your attempt to pick a fight is quite transparent. Just go write a few dozen GAs of your own and stop picking fights about mine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Who's trying to pick a fight? I'm not. I have nothing against you as an editor. You've done a lot of fine work here and elsewhere on wiki. I don't think anyone on here is trying to be mean, I just think the article is so long and detailed that it detracts from a reader's ability to learn relevant info about the subject.► Chris Nelson Holla! 19:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think my work is so good, why do you repeatedly try to chop it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What are the key facts you'd want to know? Let's fix it so those can be easily gleaned in the intro and article. Double Blue  (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Repeatedly try to chop it up? I can't remember ever doing that, and if I did it had to do with the content and not with you. Plus, I never looked at who had made all the contributions to this article before I made my initial post on this talk page. To be honest, I never intended to actually do anything about this article, I wast just commenting. It's not that important to me, I was just giving my opinion.


 * And, like I already said, you have done good work on this article. Every single bit of relevant info on June's life is already here. The problem is, all that relevant info is interspersed with hundreds of sentences and dozens of paragraphs of irrelevant or superfluous info. The good work you've done is that you've found every piece of information necessary to make this article great. The only downside is you've found too much, you've made the article so long it's hard to quickly learn all the truly relevant stuff about the subject.


 * The hard part is already done though - all the good info is here. If anything is to be done though, it just needs to be parsed down to make it more concisely and wholly relevant.► Chris Nelson Holla! 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Same here. All the information that needs to be there is there. There's just, in my opinion, a whole bunch of other (for lack of a better word) "stuff" in there that doesn't. I'm hesitant to go in there and make changes because they'll probably be reverted if I try to do anything, and I don't want to get in any edit wars, which I had a problem with some time ago.


 * When somebody comes to this article, they want to read the relevant information about his NFL career and his college career. It's really hard to do that with all the additional irrelevancies. All the really important facts about Junes' life are all spead out amongst a whole bunch of paragraphs of unnecessary information.  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My problem here is I am debating with a couple of guys who have hardly produced any reviewed content to my knowledge about what makes a reviewed content successfully reviewed. In most cases, it is very difficult to find information about things in an athletes life outside of college and pro athletics.  Almost every reviewer asks for more.  In this case I have found it.  If someone does not want to read about his high school career he can easily skip it.  This article is going to be reviewed closely at WP:GAC. Let's see where that goes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read it and I don't see anything superfluous or irrelevant. Perhaps an introductory section for the professional career that would summarise things would satisfy their concerns. Double Blue  (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because I don't produce any reviewed content doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I choose not to do those sort of projects here, and instead take on others. But I'm a good writer and I think I'm as qualified as anyone else here to make a judgment on the quality of the work here.


 * I don't really care what happens to this article and I don't plan on making any changes regarding this matter. I just think someone ought to go in and condense the thing to make it more concise and relevant.► Chris Nelson Holla! 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Chris, even I have reviewed content. ;)-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 02:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't produced any GA-level articles? Maybe you've already forgotten, but I had a great role in the promotion of Héctor López to Good article status, which I helped you with. So I know very well what a GA article should be.
 * I'm not saying this article won't be GA status in the future, but I don't think it'll hurt its case by removing a bunch of unnecessary information.  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that the article will be less complete without information such as his video game interest. Right before training camp he was tweeting about playing vid games.  That is part of his life.  If you want to know about the guy, you should know he likes the vids.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, the fact that he plays video games doesn't seem particularly important to me at all. I don't think it'll destroy the world if people don't know that.  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 23:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are problems with the article in terms of quality. They mostly relate to my research/editorial style since I tend to read an article and add a sentence or two to the WP bio from its content, which results in a bunch of choppy sentences.  However, I will stand by each sentence added based on my experience at WP:GAC and what reviewers want to see.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is fan-freaking-tastic. We don't decide if people are "important" enough to have a long article or not. The availability of reliable sources decide if we can make an adequate article or not. If you think you can help to make it more readable, then I'm sure everybody would appreciate it but don't just say this guy's not that important therefore he's should have a four paragraph article. Double Blue (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the positive thing is it certainly includes all the relevant info to June's life and career, which most articles do not. All the relevant info is there. The problem is, it's sandwiched in between so much irrelevant information, it's not easy to get to. It should be whittled down some, so that it is complete but concise.► Chris Nelson Holla! 19:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is the perfect size. Very well done and complete. More articles show be like this than not, IMO. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When I saw this thread this morning it was four lines long and now it's eighty, what happended? Haha. But if I get it the main concern is that the article has too much info, this will be dealt with during the GA review because whoever reviews it will say this line has no purpose and that paragraph isn't useful etc. So, this huge thread is basically going to improve nothing other than tear up a terrific article because the guy is not relevant enough to have this long of an article.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 02:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow-up to what I just said, if this guy isn't relevant enough to have 29+kb of useful content, then who allowed Michael Vick to have 73+kb of relatively unneutral garbage?-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 02:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, you seem to be under a completely false impression that any fact about a notable person is notable. That is simply not true. June is certainly notable enough for inclusion here, but not every single aspect of his life is notable. I don't where you're getting that from.► Chris Nelson Holla! 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am getting it from my experiences with 200-300 GAC reviews where reviewers have said this is a notable person and you need to add depth and breadth to his article. Comments like please add content unrelated to football. Do you have any information on his relationships with friends and family? Has he been involved in any controversy?  Etc.  The content has been included largely based on my experience at GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Chris and I will agree with you on this subject, Tony. I'm not proposing to strip the article down completely at this point, although I do not think it's necessary Wikipedia house a memoir of his life. But if I come across some various pieces of information in the article that I feel are irrelevant (like the "fact", using the term loosely, that he played Madden with his college roommate, or the "fact" that he played fantasy football) and their removal doesn't take away from the quality of the article, are you gonna allow me to remove what I see fit?  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 07:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem. I think things are relevant. You think they are not.  Aside from you and Chris most of the commenters on this topic say essentially to leave it alone.  Why should you start yanking stuff out?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You think everything is relevant, while I feel that "some" parts are not. Part of the editing process, and part of what users are allowed to do, is remove unnecessary information of articles. With so much information in the article, realistically there are going to be some parts that could be done without. I also feel that just because you and I disagree about how much content should be in the article isn't a justifiable reason to prevent me from making any edits. This could be viewed as an example of WP:OWN. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about wiping out huge chunks of the article. If I were to remove even a couple pieces of "insignificant" information from the article, I greatly doubt that would lessen the chance of being promoted to a Good Article. And if in the GA review it comes about that they request information that I've removed being in the article, it could always be easily re-inserted.  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 15:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the problem here seems to be that Tony seems to think every piece of info is relevant because the subject is. That of course is false. This isn't a novel or a journal - every thing June did in his leisure time ten years ago is not notable or relevant to his career. I'm starting to think Tony would have a whole section on June's bowel movements if he could source it.► Chris Nelson Holla! 16:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not saying all information on June is encyclopedic, but I feel that all the things I have added are or I wouldn't have added them. Note above fear by that you will "tear up a terrific article", comment by  "the article is the perfect size", comment by  "I've read it and I don't see anything superfluous or irrelevant".  This is on top of my own beliefs that what is there is good.  Why don't you open your eyes and read the responses above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if they think every piece of info in this article is relevant, they're mistaken as well.► Chris Nelson Holla! 17:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Chris may be reading it from a sportsperson's perspective and just wants the nuts and bolts of who this guy is from that perspective but we have to keep in mind that this is an all-encompassing encyclopedia and this is, in fact, a biography. A bio of a football player, true, so we need to keep the information that sports readers will come here to read about, readable but we still want a broad biography of the man. Tony has already agreed some re-writes may help make the sentences flow and read better. Double Blue  (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong...► Chris Nelson Holla! 17:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail, to see what's wrong here when basically you're saying that all of this info you deem irrelevant needs to be removed because it doesn't pertain to his NFL career.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) It also has, I might point out, pretty nice coverage of his pro-football ups and downs and why. I like that. It gives a perspective of his career. Is it too much when you're looking at your pool picks? Probably but it's a good read for an article. Double Blue  (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'm not saying that the article should only have information pertaining to June's NFL career. But I still feel there is some information that isn't relevant to his career or his life. For example, I fail to see why it is so important to know that he played video games with somebody in the offseason. I mean really, does that seem irrelevant to anybody but me?  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 17:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's about who he is and what's important to him. If you read the sources you will see it's a major part of his personal life and he also does it for charity. Double Blue  (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is hopeless. You guys want to make the overall quality of the article lower than it could be by drowning all the relevant info in useless information, then be my guest.► Chris Nelson Holla! 18:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I think that playing video games with US Military troops is significantly different than playing with a teammate in his apartment in the offseason. In fact, so many NFL players play Madden (except for T. J. Houshmandzadeh, who is "boycotting" the game because he doesn't like his game rating), that it'd probably be more notable if a player said he didn't play the game.  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What Chris and Ksy92003 have to realize is that if the reviewer of the GA says that the video game part is useless or goes too much into detail, they'll say it so no point in discussing something that will probably be fixed in a few weeks.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, when is this GA review supposed to happen, anyway?  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Couple of weeks, probably.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 18:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I became curious at Wizardman's "this'll take a little while" comment at WP:GAN and came here to check it out. It's definitely unusual that a non-superstar player would have an article like this, but I don't see how it can be a bad thing. The comparison to Obama is spurious - look at all the articles on Barack Obama (not all necessarily are about the man, but still). Spinout of sub-topics is of course more an evident thing to do with the President of the United States than some fair to middlin' football player (Early life and career of Cato June? I don't think so), but as long as there's no compelling rule or reason against the article being this long, and it doesn't seem that there is, I fail to see very much of a problem. Maybe a few individual points in the text are of dubious encyclopedic significance, but that's not necessarily any more likely in a 132K article than it is in a smaller one. Nosleep break my slumber 03:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because June as a person is less notable and less accomplished than Obama, so there isn't as much notable information out there to put in an article. So, what you have is an article that rivals Obama's in length, but not in relevance, because so much if June's article is irrelevant.► Chris Nelson Holla! 12:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do tell what these oh so many points of irrelevance are. In this whole thread, I've seen one raised, the video games. Nosleep  break my slumber 17:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the pantheon of professional American Football, June is but a side note. In terms of historical importance, he probably ranks a whisker below Darryl Talley and well below Cornelius Bennett (two players who were notable on my favorite team).  Talley led the Bills in tackles during their 4 consecutive Super Bowl run a couple times at least if not all four, but today he is a Darryl who to most football fans.  Nonetheless, the quality of their articles or other people significantly more important in no way pose a limitation on the quality, breadth or depth of his article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I will agree, though, that the lead is an albatross. Nosleep break my slumber 17:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I said the same thing a couple weeks ago. On my screen (regular settings), the entire intro doesn't even fit on the screen. Four lines are off, and as far as I'm concerned, it's probably too long if I can't see the entire intro on the screen at once.  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As minor of a player as you guys make him out to be, he is a Pro Bowler. He could be like a Carl Banks and make the All-Decade team or something if he gets lucky.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So a one-time Pro Bowler is as great in stature as a 15-time Pro Bowler is what you're saying, simply because he made the Pro Bowl even once?  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 13:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, he's saying a one-time Pro Bowler could make an all-decade team. I still cannot get over this discussion.  If even a quarter of Wikipedia articles were as good as this one, Wikipedia would be a much better place. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole argument is getting ridiculous. Why don't you guys try bringing up specific parts that you think should be removed? For instance, in my opinion this line could be canned:
 * "They were known for having Madden 2003 for Playstation in an apartment known as "The Stadium"."

I'd say the following Madden Bowl line is fine, though. TheMile (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd brought up the point that I thought the lines regarding him playing Madden 2003 in the offseason or whatever should be removed, but even that was rejected.  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 14:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't care enough to read through this whole thing and give examples of stuff I think should be taken out. The article is too long that I'd never in my life want to read the thing. (Which is really the point, isn't it?) When I initially brought it up here, I was merely commenting on it and saying that someone (anyone) should go through and make it a little more concise. Someone with June's accomplishments cannot possibly have this much to talk about.► Chris Nelson Holla! 15:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that, with or without the conversation, I would be "unable" to go in there and edit it. I feel that if I were to try, I'd likely be reverted.  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is currently under review at WP:GAC. I appreciated your stylistic changes earlier although you removed  inadvertently.  However, I would like to believe that a persons hobbies are relevant to his biography in as much as the achieve prominent commercial relevance as they have in this case. Noting that a player plays Madden is only relevant in cases where he is the NFL champ or in cases where his video game proclivity is significant in another facet of his life as it became here.  In terms of fear of reverting. I would attempt to preserver the relevance of Madden if at all possible, but welcome attempts at editorial improvement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're hopeless.► Chris Nelson Holla! 04:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a very in-depth well sourced article. I'd vote for it for a GAC. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

High School Junior triple jump champ lacks valid ref
The University of Michigan Cato June Bio has disappeared as the Athletic Department changed servers. The internet archive has no record of the page. It appears that indoor track did not contest the triple jump according to a brief article on the indoor championships and the article on the outdoor championships is devoid of detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cato June. 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/20090921193309/http://www.profootballweekly.com/2009/09/04/nfl-transactions-for-september-3-2009 to http://www.profootballweekly.com/2009/09/04/nfl-transactions-for-september-3-2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)