Talk:Jack Youngblood/GA2

The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' This article has been approved on greatly since the last nommination. I think it should be ready to be passed as a GA. --Pinkkeith (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA and leaving some comments below. The article seems to be well written and well referenced. There are some formatting prose issues that I think will be easy to fix. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * You have used the same heading "Awards and honors" twice. Per MoS, heading cannot be repeated.
 * ✅ Put it under its own heading with college and NFL seperated.--Pinkkeith (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also not good to repeat words in the headings as in:
 * Post-NFL career
 * Broadcasting career
 * Football administrative career
 * Acting career
 * Acting career
 * Business Career (See Mos:Section headings)
 * ✅--Pinkkeith (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps under "Post-NFL career", some of the headings could be combined. For example, "Popularity" is a very general heading but only addresses a small part of his career. Also, do you think that a separate heading is needed for "Autobiography"? Maybe the whole section under "Post-NFL career" could be reorganized a little, and a couple of the sections combined.
 * ✅ Autobiography moved to own heading --Pinkkeith (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another editor beleieved it was too short to have its own separate heading. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Post-NFL career reorgainzed --Pinkkeith (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Popularity needs to be moved and renamed. --Pinkkeith (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting a bit to restrictive. I think that section is fine and will be improved with some more effort. It is well sourced. Maybe there is a way to do it better, I am not saying it is perfect, but there is a personna about this subject and I think it needs to be captured. The subejct heading is just one way, but let's keep it for a little while and see. I know you want this to be a GA, but still, regardless of what the "article graders" say, this is a special article in a lot of ways, a lot of work and research has gone into it. So, let's not try and get "points" from people that may or may not "get" it.Tampa David (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

-*/+ WP:LEAD, the lead needs to be expanded to summarize more accurately the article.
 * Several of the sections are composed of many short paragraphs. For improved prose flow, it would be better to combine some of the short paragraphs into larger ones. For variety, it is best to have paragraphs of varying size.
 * ✅ Although a better writer may be able to improve. I just summarized the article.Tampa David (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Footnote citations to books should contain the page number where the information is found.
 * It appears the editor(s) either linked the Amazon.com link to purchase the book or to an online printing of the book. I own Blood, but not the other books. I'll see if I can find what pages should be cited. Here's the ones that I found and the footnote number as of this posting:
 * ✅Tampa David (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Gators Glory: Great Eras in Florida Football, footnote 5
 * Page 236, I don't know how to put in page numberTampa David (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅Tampa David (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One Knee Equals Two Feet, footnote 22
 * Page 113Tampa David (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅Tampa David (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Crime Fighting Heroes of Television, footnote 28
 * This is now footnote 34 and it is page 47Tampa David (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅Tampa David (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Right On The Numbers: The Debate of the Greatest Players in Sports to Wear the Numbers 0 to 99, footnote 40
 * This is now footnote 60. It is page 253Tampa David (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅Tampa David (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Pain Gang: Pro Football's Fifty Toughest Players, footnote 63, 67, 70, 72
 * The reference numbers are not right, but here is the reference--- footnote 92 Rockey Belier quote page 188. Foornote 89 Bob Brown is page 186. Footnote 85 is a reference that he is in the book so that encompases pages 184-189. footnote 94 is page 189. Also, on this one . . . is there a way to combine them like footnote 2, 4, and 10? I don't know how to do it.Tampa David (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅Tampa David (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Blood footnote 82 --Pinkkeith (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Footnote 16 is page 10.Tampa David (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅Tampa David (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some sections, such as "Football administrative career" do not have any inline citations.
 * I tagged this section as needing references. I'll attempt to look for some. --Pinkkeith (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Completed by another editor. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is strictly a personal preference issue, but I am wondering whether you are fond of the dark grey quote box color. It is possible to have a clear quote box that is easier to read. For example (I have copied this from Frank Zappa.)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Used Quote box for the quotes. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the new size, but I like a background . . . is there a way to shade it in a lighter color? It is not necessary, but it makes it stand out, maybe even a dark color with white text?Tampa David (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if we could call the "Post-NFL career" something else since it does include some activities he has done as a player with the LA Rams. (Such as his failed business and his product endorsements.) I did move "Charitable activities" into its own heading. --Pinkkeith (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some phrase to encompass his activities that were not football-related. As time goes by, the rest of his career will become larger and, as has happened in some cases, could dwarf his football playing. e.g. Tony Dungy. Look at some other articles on football players and see how they have handled it. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keith is right, some of it was during his career, however, "Extra NFL activities" does not seem to fit. or 'Outside NFL career" does not really fit, either. This article has been scrutinized quite a bit, nothing is going to be perfect. There will always be room for improvement, but . . . comapred to a lot of other NFL articles, this is pretty good. Let's not just suck up o "the man" just to get recognition. Those who did all the work should get the credit anyway, not the "reorganizers".Tampa David (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a infinite number of ways you can format the color and size of quoteboxes.
 * Well, I want eveyone to be happy . . . I like the new text size, it is easier to read . . . but a little "color" wouldn't hurt, would it? Maybe even gold with blue type? My issue is I don't know how to do all of that. Still learning.Tampa David (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In the section "NFL career", paragraphs need to be combined and the prose worked on to reduce the choppiness and increase the prose fluidity and flow. Improve it like you did to "College career".
 * Okay, will try. I am not a great writer, but I will combine in maybe 2-year intervals.Tampa David (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ but will still work on it more.Tampa David (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)
 * You have worked very hard and done a good job! This article passes GA. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)