Talk:John Sterling (American football)

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: [1]
• Anthony Harrison: [2]
• Chuck Compton: [3]

• 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

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Sterling (American football)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 22:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk · contribs) 03:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

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.	Very readable, even to someone like myself who is not familiar with football. There are no obvious grammar/spelling issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).	I was able to access and verify each reference.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nothing in the article wasn't backed up by sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Everything was put into the writer's own words.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	While I originally was skeptical regarding this criteria due to the size of the article, it does seem that the article has all the information available about this topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No off-topic sections. Everything included seems relevant.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	I was unable to find any non-copyrighted photos of the individual.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No media so this doesn't apply here.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well written, easy to understand article. While the article is short, it has all the available information on the topic, presented in an organized way.