Good articleBert Bell has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 27, 2013Good article nomineeListed


there's nothing wrong with this article

[edit]

it's okay. i think it's solid. i'm happy with it. i am sure copy editing could always make it better. but it's the best i could do. as far as a long ago complaint that maybe it does not show bell's compassion for the game, i dunno, i think i have portrayed him as very, to extremely, passionate to the success of the nfl. i think it meets good article criteria, however i have no time to reply to good article judges so i had to remove my request it be considered a good article. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bert Bell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 03:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


General
Okay, I will rewrite Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long one, so will take some time to complete...

Okay I rewrote that first paragraph. That first paragraph was atrocious. I deleted a 1000 bytes from it. The whole Eagles section is a total disaster. I need major research there. It's just really bad. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
The genius fixed this. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The genius fixed this. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
User:Go Phightins fixed this.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
University of Pennsylvania
Early Career
OK, I will have to reevaluate the syntax.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. I will continue with the review tomorrow. Regards, Resolute 03:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

Philadelphia Eagles
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on personal life section. Absolutely disagree, with emotion, to give him any credit for being a published author. 'The Story of Professional Football in Summary' is not a real book. It's propaganda and marketing in response to the U.S. Congress investigating the NFL. Everything else he wrote is marketing in favor of the NFL or to counteract negative publicity. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pittsburgh Steelers
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Complicated, I will have to reevaluate.
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, no biggie, seems like personal preference. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NFL Commissioner
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NFL-AAFC merger
Agreed, however, this is a poor research problem or sources may be unclear. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing of the NFL
Agreed, bad job by me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy and honors
Overall

I'm going to place on hold, as I think most issues should be easily addressable. Regards, Resolute 03:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with pretty much everything; if I didn't do something, I left a note in the edit summary as to why. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, thanks! Hopefully Ijustreadbooks returns with their sources and can add the final pieces of context you couldn't, but I don't see anything that was removed holding up this nomination. As such, I am passing the nomination. Cheers! Resolute 23:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Yes I will return and we will have to go through the whole process again. I only have one hangup with what Phightins did. But I can't believe he did what he did so fast (he must be a genius), I thought it would take me 6months. The latter part of the Philadelphia Eagles section is, from a research standpoint, a complete disaster. I am going to have to get bloody and go down to Philly and dig stuff up with new sources. I know the sources exist and I know where they are. I just have to access those sources. Forget about the other complaints (those are for great editors and writers to handle), the missing story between 1937 and 1939 is just a total disaster. Some people are great writers and editors, I am not. I will get that research done.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for anything that happened outside of 1937-1939, I just might have deleted a citation accidentally. I have them all ...somewhere. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To get this puppy up to FA by next Super Bowl would be great, although I do not have the skills to do it an as editor. But I'll worry about that later. First order of business is to handle that missing timeframe between 1937 and 1939. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you need any help, feel free to ping me at my talk. Go Phightins! 19:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a disaster. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Eagles (1933–1940)

[edit]

First paragraph needs major copy edit - that will not be easy. The fourth paragraph is a complete joke - need major research to be done. Atrocious job in this section. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need fix on Bert Bell's father being selected or elected as AG

[edit]

"His father was an attorney who served a term as the Pennsylvania Attorney General."

My citation does not really support this. Need a fix on a better source. Notified editor who made the change and requested he provide a better source. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, technically speaking, your source does not support that. For all anyone knows, Bell Sr. changed his mind and did not serve and your source simply did not point this out. For the record, however, the important thing is that Bell Sr. did serve, and this is well-documented in numerous official state documents from the AG office with his name prominently listed as AG.
I changed the sentence to concentrate on the important issue: Bell Sr. served a term as state AG. How he got there isn't too important to an article about the son. As it is, your source was a book about the history of football, and the author did not bother to doublecheck how things were done in Pennsylvania politics in 1911. PA had always had an appointed AG until around 1980, when the law was changed and the office became elective.
I have been spending the past week cleaning up and greatly expanding the whole PA AG topic, adding several articles, and numerous more are on the way. As part of the cleanup I've been finding minor little falsehoods in related articles, like this one. So for your sake I will create an article on Bell Sr. later today, sooner than I expected to, and I will provide there several citations, including his NYT obituary and at least one official PA state document with a brief bio, both of which mention that he was appointed. Look for Bell Sr.'s name to become a blue link on the article page.
In addition, earlier in his career, Bell Sr. had been appointed Philadelphia DA to fill out someone's unfinished term, and then he ran and was elected back to the same office. Choor monster (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Bell astutely argued

[edit]

I have not been involved in Wikipedia for a few years so I will have to dig up my username. I really do not like "Bell astutely argued" in the introduction. No one reads the article, even less no one writes on the talk page. So, I do not see any problem with removing the word astutely. I have looked at that "astutely" for quite some time. There are all kinds of wikipedia rules - which I know nothing about. But, I am going to remove that word astutely before the end of the year. I am sure that I was the one that wrote that, but you just can not put the word "astutely" in an introduction. It's just wrong. I just must have made a mistake. 66.234.58.130 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change. 66.234.58.130 (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He survived to oversee

[edit]

"He survived to oversee the 'Greatest Game Ever Played' and to envision what the league would become in the future." I do not really like this in the introduction because of what I wrote here "to envision what the league would become in the future". That statement is supported by an anecdotal statement via the current footnote 157 from Raymond Berry. But I really do not like that kind of things because anyone can say anything. I want to trim it down to "He survived to oversee the 'Greatest Game Ever Played'" and maybe combine that statement with another sentence in the paragraph. I will have to think about this.

Oh, I know my username - ijustreadbooks -, but i do not feel like recovering my password.

I think I want to delete the whole sentence: "He survived to oversee the "Greatest Game Ever Played" and to envision what the league would become in the future." The sentence really makes no sense to me. 66.234.58.130 (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is OK in the body of the article. But I really do not want it in the introduction. 66.234.58.130 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]