Jump to content

Talk:Kenny Easley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Good articleKenny Easley 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
DateProcessResult
August 6, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 5, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA issues

I am putting this article's Good Article nomination on hold for 7 days, due to the following issues (some minor and some not):

  • Although it is not required, it would be nice to have at least one picture of Easley in the article. Just make sure it is sourced and tagged appropriately, with proper fair use rationale.
  • Inline citations need to be consistently and properly formatted. See WP:FOOT for help.
  • The lead states that Easley's career was cut short. This is not neutral language, and not even necessarily correct. The average NFL career is not very long at all.
  • Did he have a kidney disease or a kidney condition? Both phrases are used, and they mean different things. And is it known exactly what the disease/condition was?
  • In 1988, the Cardinals were known as the Phoenix Cardinals, not the Arizona Cardinals.
  • Even though profootball reference.com doesn't have much in the way of stats on Easley, a link should still be included in the infobox.
  • It would be better, when linking a specific year, to link to one of the 19XX NFL season articles rather than 19XX in sports.
  • I would like to see more info on his early career. For instance - he was a mult-sport star in high school, but in what sports?
  • Is there any more info on what he is doing now (other than just "business entrepreneur")? If so, that would be very good to include.
  • The Bill Walsh quote is not sourced.
  • Last, but not least, this article is in definite need of some copyediting - there are quite a few grammatical errors throughout.

Once these issues are addressed, the article should be fit for GA status. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some. The footnotes are set in a different way than most people use but still valid, see Selena for example, images are not required and I hate using fair use unless I really have to if I want to get an article to WP:FAC, see Ryan Leaf for example, the article I'm working now.

The Bill Walsh quote is from the first footnote, I try to refrence it but it breaks the quotebox in a dramatic way and I don't like using a quotes section. Can't find no extra info on being business entrepreneur, same with the early life and the exact disease he had.

I fixed the rest, I kept the XXX in sports for the college section while changed that to NFL season on his Pro Career and also I'm a bad copyeditor but I did some. Jaranda wat's sup 20:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Good article nomination for Kenny Easley has failed, for the following reason:

  • Numerous copyediting issues still need to be fixed.
  • Still very little information on early life and post-football endeavors. The information may not be quick to find, but it must be out there, since he is a public figure.
  • Still no link to profootballreference.com in the infobox. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 23:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an bad copyeditior, looks good to me though, no info found after mass searching, and link is not mantadory to the infobox. Jaranda wat's sup 23:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kenny Easley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 08:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Many prose-related comments above.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Some topics not covered (see comments).
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I'll put this "on hold" pending resolution of the comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when my comments have been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologizes, my computer has been overheating and turning off randomly the past month or so and because of a massive money drain my most recent illness a few months ago costs me, I am currently lacking the funds to replace it. That is why I am/was unable to focus on one particular thing on the present moment that takes me more than 30 minutes like content work or GA reviews (I had literally finished one GA review and about to click save when my computer turned off, losing the review). I should be able to finish your concerns by tomorrow, as I will be in the University the whole day (and not using my fried laptop). Secret account 00:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Ping me when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]