Talk:Chuck Compton

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• John Sterling (American football)
• Anthony Harrison
• Chuck Compton

)

• ... that that John Sterling, Anthony Harrison and Chuck Compton were all signed by the Green Bay Packers as replacement players because of a players' strike during the 1987 NFL season?

Sources:

• John Sterling:
• Anthony Harrison:
• Chuck Compton:

• Reviewed: (1) Ann Corcoran; (2) Holmium; (3) George Munday

5x expanded by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John Sterling (American football); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Another multi-article nomination, I see? I'll review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Are you sure you don't want to expand four more replacements and add them here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Hahahahaha I said no more seven-parters... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I've reviewed each of the three articles and they all appear to pass the criteria. This nomination appears good to go! BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chuck Compton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 18:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Review

I am happy to review this article.

1a. The article is short and concise, it has an infobox which provides the relevant information.

2a the article follows MOS:ORDER and it has sections which are needed.

2c&d. I have spot checked references and they are high quality newspapers and other RS. The citations are accurate. I do not find evidence of plagiarism or original research.

A shame there are no images. I tried to find some images myself but was not successful.

Discussion

Issues

1. Second sentence in the early life section has three citations. Keep WP:OVERCITE in mind and if all are not needed consider removing the extra.
2. Is there anything we can find about his personal life? Since this is a biography we should know, marriage? Children? etc. Bruxton (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo fan2007 to check in

Thanks Bruxton for the review. Unfortunately, Compton was a replacement player and I feel pretty confident that his bio is as full as it is going to get, short of any unknown sources. I did a fairly exhaustive search on Newspapers.com for him. Regarding overcite, sources 3 and 4 are fundamentally the same source (one newspaper article split on separate pages). I create a clipping for each page and a separate citation so that each clipping can be archived by the Wayback Machine. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Because it is a biography I feel it is necessary that the bio is complete. I will close this GAN as not successful and if new RS becomes available you can resubmit. Sadly an obituary would likely have the missing information. Bruxton (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton:, that is not a valid fail reasoning. WP:GACR #3 says "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." If the info hasn't been reported, there is no way to include it in his article. Yet this article covers the major aspects of why he is notable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I looked at all of your previous GA bios and the shortest one is over 600 words. They all cover all of the elements of a biography. This one is truncated and misses a large part of the person's life. I will ask for a second opinion. Bruxton (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Bruxton, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that says a bio must contain details from every part of a person's life. We know almost nothing about Jesus before his ministry, which covers 90% of his life (I know that's an exaggerated comparison). I'm just saying, if there isn't verifiable information covering specific details, how can we expect to include it. Yet if the subject is deemed notable and sources exist to provide information, then we provide it. This article is complete in that it summarizes the verifiable information that is available on Compton. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I will leave it open while considering WP:GACR#3a. I am working on a few other GANs but I will keep track of this one. Bruxton (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Are you sure you've added everything there is to be known about Compton? I'm sure there's a few other details that could be added to satisfy Bruxton's length concern, e.g. what junior college did he go to? I can take a look for sources to help if you'd like. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: Thank you for stopping over, what do you think about my concern over the bio? I think it is a good article - I was not concerned with the length of the article just the completeness. Bruxton (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much time right now to analyze everything, but if your concern is not about length but about completeness, what types of details do you think are necessary to make this bio "complete"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: I thought his life after football. Bruxton (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that life after football can be really difficult - or often impossible (for players without an obituary) - to find for some players, especially extremely obscure ones like replacement players (Compton) - though I can look into this further later today. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I did a quick look - I couldn't really find anything on his post-football life - I think this is him on FaceBook, but I don't know if we want to be using that as a source for a GA. I'll leave this to you, @Bruxton: BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Sorry for the delay. After considering BeanieFan's and WP:GACR #3 I will continue the review. Bruxton (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, it would seem to be ok to use his Facebook page to cite the following: "After his football career, Compton worked for RC Willey, a furniture store with locations in the western United States." I'm not sure it really adds much, and at least publicly his account hasn't been updated for a while. I don't mind either way. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Spelling etc.

• ? Career section: "however he either" Consider a comma after "however"
• ? Career section: "season was cancelled," Consider that the article is about an American sport and the American version of the word "canceled" only has one L.
• ? Career section: "first team" Should we capitalize and hyphenate? I am not positive if when referring to sports honors, we capitalized and hyphenated in all instances. I think you would know better than me.
  • I got all 3 of these. In prose, first-team isn't capitalized, although yes it is hyphenated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

instances

Junior college and HS

• Y Can we add his Junior college? This source also confirms Merced and source] and source.
• Y An article from his HS days?
  • Bruxton, will you ping me when you have finished your review? I prefer to wait for the complete review before addressing anymore items. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I would like to see if you can incorporate any of the JC or HS RS. After that I think it will be easier for me to complete the checks. Bruxton (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Bruxton, I believe I have added what you requested. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Citations

• Y Will wait for you to add the JC information.
• Y citations in the article line up

Chart

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes
	2b. 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).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	—N/a
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	—N/a
	7. Overall assessment.	Thanks for sticking with me. The article makes use of every available source and it is well written.

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.