Talk:Ian Allen (gridiron football)/GA1

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 01:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Picking this one up next, the review may take 2-3 days to complete, I will do updates as I work through it and post updates here. If there are issues at the end I'll put it for hold to allow you to work on it.  MPJ  -DK 01:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Comments below (more to come)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * I see no worries in the article history
 * 1) 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):
 * No images at all, not a blocker just a shame - but he played before everyone had cellphones and knew what an image license is so I am not surprised. Since he's living fair use is iffy too, so this is the only real option.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * No images at all, not a blocker just a shame - but he played before everyone had cellphones and knew what an image license is so I am not surprised. Since he's living fair use is iffy too, so this is the only real option.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * No copyright violations
 * No source issues according to the external links tool.


 * Prose
 * The "Ipswich Cardinals" section is short and without many of the details mentioned in the article, should be expanded to explain the fact that he did not actually put any money up and what his role was. Any info on how it went? Since he was last working at Target I assume he is no longer working with the Cardinals??
 * I added a bit. I looked extensively for sources detailing his fate as an owner. As best I can tell, he's not actively involved with the team any longer, but I can find no reliable source indicating as such. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been there, how do you prove a negative like that? It would not work to cite a bunch of articles that does not mention him as co-owner etc. Challenge with stuff like this is we can only include what we can source, so it is what it is, annoying, but won't stand in the way of GA.  MPJ  -DK 04:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Any information at what sort of position he held at GM and Xerox?
 * Only via his LinkedIn, and the information isn't particularly noteworthy. I can add it if you like, but it's generally my personal preference not to list official titles in a later career when they have nothing to do with a person's notability and are covered only in self-published sources. Many people "beef up" their titles for LinkedIn. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If LinkedIn is all you've got to go on then I agree to leave it out.  MPJ  -DK 04:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I only even know he worked in those places at all due to LinkedIn. Better than nothing for detailing what he did after football, but still not terribly valuable. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources
 * No source for personal information such as date of birth, place of birth, height, weight etc.
 * This is all sourced to cite 8. It's the typical convention in sports bios (at least that I've seen) not to include inline cites in the infobox, but I can add one somewhere if needed. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Problem is that it's not obvious since cite 8 is not used anywhere in the artice where this is mentioned, if you put cite 8 with his birthdate it'd go quite some way to clue the reader in to where the personal data is from, right now it's not clear.  MPJ  -DK 04:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, done (the cite numbers will have changed now, just FYI). ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Several of the sources has the title in all caps, should be converted to normal case even if the article title is in all caps.
 * I believe I addressed all these, but possible I missed one. Please double-check for me with a fresh set of eyes. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * LinkedIn is an iffy source, basically self-published and possible to fake - it only sources non-contentious facts but I'm not sure about the source, I am going to look into it to see if that's acceptable or not.
 * Indeed. Without it, we miss out on his post-football career, though, so I think it's fine just to source which corporations he's worked at. There may be some non-LinkedIn sources that have trivial mentions of him in connection with a company, but I found none explicitly about him signing on with either company. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've looked it over again, the only minor issue is the lead is a bit short, just one paragraph and it mainly summarizes his football career. perhaps a quick second paragraph that mentions his music career etc.?  MPJ  -DK 11:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a short second paragraph detailing his post-football career path. Let me know if you'd like me to add additional stuff to the lead. I usually like to keep it short and sweet to serve as a true overview rather than a condensed version of the entire article, but that's my own personal preference. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * - to me the lead is a "cliff notes" or a "highlight reel". What you've added works for me. Passed for GA.  MPJ  -DK 00:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)