Talk:Bob Harlan/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AviationFreak (talk · contribs) 21:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   • In 1971, he was hired by the Packers as assistant general manager and for the next 18 years was promoted to executive vice president. - This is unclear; at what point was he promoted to EVP? Promotion occurs at a point, not over 18 years.
   • Probably should mention that the Cardinals were a baseball team, especially considering there was a football team of that name when he was working there.

   I've made a few minor copyedits, otherwise looks good.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Pretty good. A couple issues with MOS:SOB, but that's minor.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References nicely formatted.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Sources appear reliable, mostly newspaper clippings and web articles. FAC will likely want more book sources, but this is fine for here.

   C. It contains no original research:

Source Spotcheck

2 [1]: Y 5 [2]: Y 6 [3]: a-d: Y 11 [4]: Y, an interesting article 13 [5]: a: Y b: ? Doesn't specifically mention that their last SB win was in '67 Y added a new source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC) c: Y 16 [6]: a-b: Y 17 [7]: a-b: Y 20 [8]: a-b: Y 21 [9]: a-d: Y 23 [10]: a-d: Y 24 [11]: a-d: Y 26 [12]: N I don't see this mentioned in FN25 or 26. There is a mention that the search went "outside the old boys' network", but that's as close as I could find. Y, I reworked that sentence and the previous sentence to better match the sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC) 29 [13]: a-c: Y 35 [14]: a: Y b: ? - Ray Rhodes is not mentioned. Y added an additional source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) c: Y d: N - Jones' departure is explained as him being "unfit to take over"; health is not mentioned. Y, deleted the sentence. Short, unnecessary sentence anyways. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) e-f: Y 37 [15]: a-c: Y 43 [16]: Y 45 [17]: Y 47 [18]: a-b: Y 54 [19]: Y 58 [20]: Y 60 [21]: N - I don't see Wolf's name or the bit about giving them the authority necessary to do their jobs successfully in this or in FN39 Y added an additional source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC) 64 [22]: Y

1. D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig shows overlap on titles, but not much else.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   A nice amount of information, appears very comprehensive.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There's maybe a little extra than completely necessary on the life of the franchise after Harlan's time as President, but as he's still part of the board this makes sense.

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   A little heavy on the "praise" side, but there doesn't appear to be much negative media coverage out there and most of the "praise" is quoting or stating team stats.

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Uncontroversial; nothing recent in the talk page or edit history

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Hutson Center image is CC2.5, and any ads within the image are likely de minimis. Stadium image contains a statue, but per a 2010 discussion this is also de minimis. I'm not an expert though, and this could come under more scrutiny at FAC (if you go that route).

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Both images are relevant, depicting places mentioned in the article. Both captions indicate the relevance.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold for 7 days. Excellent article, well-written and, all things considered, pretty well-sourced. Just a few things that need taking care of. AviationFreak💬 00:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• AviationFreak, thank you for the review. I believe I addressed your comments in this edit. Regarding MOS:SOB, I went through and removed registered nurse, quarterback and defensive end. Are there any other links you see that aren't relevant or that you would remove? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  The prose looks great, including the links. The only thing that still needs to be done is a bit of editing to the sourcing (see the "Source Spotchecks" section; there's a "[show]" button on the right to open it). AviationFreak💬 19:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  AviationFreak, I think I addressed all the source items. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  That looks good. Excellent work! Promoting as successful. AviationFreak💬 16:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.