Talk:Keith Bostic (American football)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact from Keith Bostic (American football) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 January 2008.
Wikipedia
Keith Bostic (American football) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: February 6, 2008

[edit] Auto peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 6, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail, needs a lot more organizing, it has a basic chronology, but in long narrative sections, needs assorted headings and subheadings for clarity, Article seems to be a collection of statistics with little narrative in between. Why should the reader "care" abut this individual?
2. Factually accurate?: Pass - as far at the article goes, well sourced.
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail, quite sparse compared to other sports figures biographies - is factually accurate and well references as far as it goes, but is choppy, appears to have gaps: When did he retire, why? What else should we know about this individual?
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Fail, insufficient images


When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Montanabw(talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting.... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, when the review was first posted, it said that the article passed all aspects, but the result was a fail. It's been fixed since then. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)