794:
it's not available, and it won't hurt GA if you can't include what just isn't there. Another concern is that the personal information isn't in the lead, and then a big concern is the BLP issues for the nephew. I'd rather you just cut any mention of the nephew. Unless there is some reason to suppose Keith raised the boy, there isn't really any good connection to Keith. Leave the mention of the son in, but include it in the lead ... something like "His son played college football also." would be enough. Cut the nephew entirely, lack of personal information won't keep the article from GA.
343:
320:
306:
275:
250:
223:
213:
188:
174:
160:
128:
114:
1045:
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise
793:
I'm still not happy. I realise you think we need personal life information, but a nephew is a bit of a stretch. Since there is so little available on his immediate family, you're trying to reach to fulfill some imagined need for ANYTHING to fill the space. However, if the information isn't available,
711:
I could not find anything else about his family other than his son and nephew. Since when this failed before I did not have any family info, I thought adding these two things might bring it up to GA. I kind of think if his nephew did something notable, it should be mentioned. It helps fill in the
667:
A LOT of short choppy sentences, that might be combined with neighbors to help the prose feel less choppy. While you don't want all long convoluted sentences, you don't want all short ones either. The second paragraph of
Glanville era is really bad for
583:
Please put in "work=Houston
Chronicle" for all those Houston Chronicle sources? I don't care as much who the publisher is, but the name of the newspaper that published the information is important.
823:
to name the first two that pop into my head. Also, I think the Alou brothers, the
Stasnys, etc use such relationships. This is stuff that is commonly used to fill out the family section.--
66:
855:
I don't know, I didn't review those articles. If you would like to take it up on the GAN talk page, that's fine. I did consult
Malleus and Geometry Guy before reaching a decision, too.
748:. Mention the nephew played sports, which gives some connection with the uncle, but the conviction doesn't have any real connection to his uncle unless his uncle was in the car too.
62:
47:
1046:
mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.
39:
435:
College - first three sentences all start with "he". Suggest rewording at least one, better to do two. Also, lots more of the rest of the sentences start "he
398:
Lead - Second paragraph, second sentence Try removing "once" from "... and Bostic was once named first team All-Big Ten." which should improve the flow.
472:
You have his birth date and place info in the lead but not in the body of the article. Everything in the lead should be in the body of the article.
708:
Is he married? Whta'd he do after football? I don't think the information on his nephew is really needed in THIS article, suggest losing it.
55:
17:
879:
92:
86:
298:
1013:
977:
932:
895:
833:
771:
722:
684:
643:
596:
559:
522:
485:
448:
411:
374:
180:
1017:
981:
936:
899:
837:
775:
726:
688:
647:
600:
563:
526:
489:
452:
415:
378:
32:
120:
146:
1009:
973:
928:
891:
829:
767:
718:
680:
639:
592:
555:
518:
481:
444:
407:
370:
880:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070516153117/http://www.thisistheusfl.com/1983usflterritorialassignments.htm
745:
1054:
1030:
1021:
994:
985:
962:
949:
940:
912:
903:
863:
850:
841:
802:
788:
779:
756:
739:
730:
701:
692:
660:
651:
613:
604:
576:
567:
539:
530:
502:
493:
465:
456:
428:
419:
391:
382:
288:
1051:
959:
860:
799:
753:
624:
807:
Isn't this a double standard of sorts. We always mention nephews when they are relevant. Take
1004:
968:
923:
886:
824:
762:
713:
675:
634:
587:
550:
513:
476:
439:
402:
365:
1025:
989:
944:
907:
845:
783:
734:
696:
655:
608:
571:
534:
497:
460:
423:
386:
236:
312:
671:
Personal section, can you combine the first and second paragraphs to help the prose flow?
166:
919:
It's a bit jargon heavy. A bit more explanations wouldn't hurt the feel of the prose.
1047:
955:
856:
795:
749:
620:
For the other references, if it's a published newspaper, etc. use the work field in
509:
Need to explain what USFL is, and give the full name before using the abbreviation.
808:
744:
the problem is by basically only mentioning his conviction, you're making it kinda
820:
816:
361:
Lead - the first sentence of the second paragraph is clunky. Suggest rewording.
812:
255:
although getting rid of the informatino on the nephew would be a good thing
954:
That was more meant to help towards an FAC if you were planning on that.
922:
What language is unusually jargony (for a football article).--
81:
Heh. Forgot to start the review page. Here's the review...
761:
I have expanded it to give proper weight to athletics.--
1000:
74:
43:
133:
short choppy prose and some MOS glitches with the lead
630:to get the title of the paper/journal italicised.
8:
297:(images are tagged and non-free images have
18:Talk:Keith Bostic (American football)
7:
292:, where possible and appropriate.
24:
546:Need to explain Wild Card game.
341:
318:
304:
273:
248:
245:Fair representation without bias
221:
211:
186:
172:
158:
126:
112:
999:I have changed the article per
1:
1055:00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
1031:08:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
995:19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
963:21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
950:01:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
913:01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
864:22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
851:22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
803:21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
789:01:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
757:01:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
740:01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
702:01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
661:01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
614:01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
577:01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
540:01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
503:00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
466:00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
429:00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
392:00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
342:
319:
305:
274:
249:
222:
212:
187:
173:
159:
127:
113:
1071:
967:I'll go there right now.--
549:Is the link sufficient.--
102:reasonably well written
311:(appropriate use with
286:It is illustrated by
237:neutral point of view
201:broad in its coverage
712:family info a bit.--
882:a reliable source?
299:fair use rationales
142:factually accurate
1029:
993:
948:
911:
849:
787:
738:
700:
659:
612:
575:
538:
501:
464:
427:
390:
356:Specific concerns
313:suitable captions
270:No edit wars etc.
1062:
1007:
971:
926:
889:
827:
765:
716:
678:
637:
629:
623:
590:
553:
516:
479:
442:
405:
368:
345:
344:
322:
321:
308:
307:
277:
276:
252:
251:
225:
224:
215:
214:
190:
189:
176:
175:
167:reliable sources
162:
161:
130:
129:
116:
115:
79:
70:
51:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1061:
1060:
1059:
627:
621:
234:It follows the
208:(major aspects)
60:
37:
31:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1068:
1066:
1058:
1057:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
917:
916:
915:
885:Ref swapped.--
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
853:
746:WP:COATRACKish
706:
705:
704:
669:
665:
664:
663:
618:
617:
616:
581:
580:
579:
544:
543:
542:
507:
506:
505:
470:
469:
468:
433:
432:
431:
396:
395:
394:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
197:
196:
195:
194:
193:
165:(citations to
138:
137:
136:
135:
134:
97:
96:
80:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1067:
1056:
1053:
1049:
1044:
1043:
1032:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1006:
1002:
1001:this feedback
998:
997:
996:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
970:
966:
965:
964:
961:
957:
953:
952:
951:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
925:
921:
920:
918:
914:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
888:
884:
883:
881:
877:
865:
862:
858:
854:
852:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
804:
801:
797:
792:
791:
790:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
764:
760:
759:
758:
755:
751:
747:
743:
742:
741:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
715:
710:
709:
707:
703:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
677:
673:
672:
670:
666:
662:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
636:
632:
631:
626:
619:
615:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
589:
585:
584:
582:
578:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
552:
548:
547:
545:
541:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
515:
511:
510:
508:
504:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
478:
474:
473:
471:
467:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
441:
437:
436:
434:
430:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
404:
400:
399:
397:
393:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
367:
363:
362:
360:
359:
358:
357:
347:
346:
339:
336:
335:
333:
330:
324:
323:
316:
314:
302:
300:
294:
293:
291:
290:
285:
279:
278:
271:
268:
267:
265:
261:
254:
253:
246:
243:
242:
240:
238:
233:
227:
226:
219:
209:
205:
204:
202:
198:
192:
191:
184:
182:
170:
168:
156:
152:
151:
149:
148:
143:
139:
132:
131:
124:
122:
110:
106:
105:
103:
99:
98:
95:for criteria)
94:
90:
88:
84:
83:
82:
78:
77:
73:
68:
64:
59:
58:
54:
49:
45:
41:
36:
35:
26:
19:
1005:TonyTheTiger
969:TonyTheTiger
924:TonyTheTiger
887:TonyTheTiger
825:TonyTheTiger
809:Bob Chappuis
763:TonyTheTiger
714:TonyTheTiger
676:TonyTheTiger
635:TonyTheTiger
588:TonyTheTiger
551:TonyTheTiger
514:TonyTheTiger
477:TonyTheTiger
440:TonyTheTiger
403:TonyTheTiger
366:TonyTheTiger
355:
354:
337:
331:
310:
296:
287:
269:
263:
244:
235:
217:
207:
200:
178:
164:
155:(references)
154:
145:
141:
118:
108:
101:
85:
75:
71:
57:Article talk
56:
52:
33:
30:
878:What makes
821:Rosie Bonds
817:Barry Bonds
44:visual edit
1022:WP:CHICAGO
986:WP:CHICAGO
941:WP:CHICAGO
904:WP:CHICAGO
842:WP:CHICAGO
780:WP:CHICAGO
731:WP:CHICAGO
693:WP:CHICAGO
652:WP:CHICAGO
605:WP:CHICAGO
568:WP:CHICAGO
531:WP:CHICAGO
494:WP:CHICAGO
457:WP:CHICAGO
420:WP:CHICAGO
383:WP:CHICAGO
147:verifiable
813:Rick Volk
625:cite news
338:Pass/Fail
218:(focused)
27:GA Review
1048:Ealdgyth
956:Ealdgyth
857:Ealdgyth
796:Ealdgyth
750:Ealdgyth
1026:WP:LOTM
990:WP:LOTM
945:WP:LOTM
908:WP:LOTM
846:WP:LOTM
784:WP:LOTM
735:WP:LOTM
697:WP:LOTM
656:WP:LOTM
609:WP:LOTM
572:WP:LOTM
535:WP:LOTM
498:WP:LOTM
461:WP:LOTM
424:WP:LOTM
387:WP:LOTM
332:Overall
109:(prose)
67:history
48:history
34:Article
674:O.K.--
633:O.K.--
586:O.K.--
512:O.K.--
475:O.K.--
438:O.K.--
401:O.K.--
364:O.K.--
289:images
264:stable
262:It is
239:policy
199:It is
140:It is
100:It is
89:review
668:this.
91:(see
76:Watch
16:<
1052:Talk
960:Talk
861:Talk
819:and
811:and
800:Talk
754:Talk
144:and
93:here
63:edit
40:edit
1018:bio
1003:.--
982:bio
937:bio
900:bio
838:bio
815:or
776:bio
727:bio
689:bio
648:bio
601:bio
564:bio
527:bio
490:bio
453:bio
416:bio
379:bio
121:MoS
1050:-
1028:)
992:)
958:-
947:)
910:)
859:-
848:)
798:-
786:)
752:-
737:)
699:)
658:)
628:}}
622:{{
611:)
574:)
537:)
500:)
463:)
426:)
389:)
340::
334::
317::
309:b
303::
295:a
272::
266:.
247::
241:.
220::
216:b
210::
206:a
203:.
185::
181:OR
177:c
171::
163:b
157::
153:a
150:.
125::
117:b
111::
107:a
104:.
87:GA
65:|
46:|
42:|
1024:/
1020:/
1016:/
1014:c
1012:/
1010:t
1008:(
988:/
984:/
980:/
978:c
976:/
974:t
972:(
943:/
939:/
935:/
933:c
931:/
929:t
927:(
906:/
902:/
898:/
896:c
894:/
892:t
890:(
844:/
840:/
836:/
834:c
832:/
830:t
828:(
782:/
778:/
774:/
772:c
770:/
768:t
766:(
733:/
729:/
725:/
723:c
721:/
719:t
717:(
695:/
691:/
687:/
685:c
683:/
681:t
679:(
654:/
650:/
646:/
644:c
642:/
640:t
638:(
607:/
603:/
599:/
597:c
595:/
593:t
591:(
570:/
566:/
562:/
560:c
558:/
556:t
554:(
533:/
529:/
525:/
523:c
521:/
519:t
517:(
496:/
492:/
488:/
486:c
484:/
482:t
480:(
459:/
455:/
451:/
449:c
447:/
445:t
443:(
422:/
418:/
414:/
412:c
410:/
408:t
406:(
385:/
381:/
377:/
375:c
373:/
371:t
369:(
315:)
301:)
183:)
179:(
169:)
123:)
119:(
72:·
69:)
61:(
53:·
50:)
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.