Talk:Bob Harlan

Untitled

RUMORS

• The mention of "rumors" about why Jones was let go as Harlan's replacement are just that. I do not believe ANYONE in the Packers organization ever gave any reason other than Jones's health for his quick departure. The comment is unsubstantiated, undocumented, doesn't belong in this article, and I shall remove it. i4 aka IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2009 (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:Bob Harlan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AviationFreak (talk · contribs) 21:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   • In 1971, he was hired by the Packers as assistant general manager and for the next 18 years was promoted to executive vice president. - This is unclear; at what point was he promoted to EVP? Promotion occurs at a point, not over 18 years.
   • Probably should mention that the Cardinals were a baseball team, especially considering there was a football team of that name when he was working there.

   I've made a few minor copyedits, otherwise looks good.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Pretty good. A couple issues with MOS:SOB, but that's minor.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References nicely formatted.

   B. 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):

   Sources appear reliable, mostly newspaper clippings and web articles. FAC will likely want more book sources, but this is fine for here.

   C. It contains no original research:

Source Spotcheck

1. • 2 : Y
   • 5 : Y
   • 6 :

   • a-d: Y

   • 11 : Y, an interesting article
   • 13 :

   • a: Y
   • b: ? Doesn't specifically mention that their last SB win was in '67 Y added a new source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
   • c: Y

   • 16 :

   • a-b: Y

   • 17 :

   • a-b: Y

   • 20 :

   • a-b: Y

   • 21 :

   • a-d: Y

   • 23 :

   • a-d: Y

   • 24 :

   • a-d: Y

   • 26 : N I don't see this mentioned in FN25 or 26. There is a mention that the search went "outside the old boys' network", but that's as close as I could find. Y, I reworked that sentence and the previous sentence to better match the sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
   • 29 :

   • a-c: Y

   • 35 :

   • a: Y
   • b: ? - Ray Rhodes is not mentioned. Y added an additional source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
   • c: Y
   • d: N - Jones' departure is explained as him being "unfit to take over"; health is not mentioned. Y, deleted the sentence. Short, unnecessary sentence anyways. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
   • e-f: Y

   • 37 :

   • a-c: Y

   • 43 : Y
   • 45 : Y
   • 47 :

   • a-b: Y

   • 54 : Y
   • 58 : Y
   • 60 : N - I don't see Wolf's name or the bit about giving them the authority necessary to do their jobs successfully in this or in FN39 Y added an additional source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
   • 64 : Y

1. D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig shows overlap on titles, but not much else.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   A nice amount of information, appears very comprehensive.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There's maybe a little extra than completely necessary on the life of the franchise after Harlan's time as President, but as he's still part of the board this makes sense.

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   A little heavy on the "praise" side, but there doesn't appear to be much negative media coverage out there and most of the "praise" is quoting or stating team stats.

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Uncontroversial; nothing recent in the talk page or edit history

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Hutson Center image is CC2.5, and any ads within the image are likely de minimis. Stadium image contains a statue, but per a 2010 discussion this is also de minimis. I'm not an expert though, and this could come under more scrutiny at FAC (if you go that route).

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Both images are relevant, depicting places mentioned in the article. Both captions indicate the relevance.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold for 7 days. Excellent article, well-written and, all things considered, pretty well-sourced. Just a few things that need taking care of. AviationFreak💬 00:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• AviationFreak, thank you for the review. I believe I addressed your comments in this edit. Regarding MOS:SOB, I went through and removed registered nurse, quarterback and defensive end. Are there any other links you see that aren't relevant or that you would remove? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  The prose looks great, including the links. The only thing that still needs to be done is a bit of editing to the sourcing (see the "Source Spotchecks" section; there's a "[show]" button on the right to open it). AviationFreak💬 19:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  AviationFreak, I think I addressed all the source items. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  That looks good. Excellent work! Promoting as successful. AviationFreak💬 16:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

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 Bruxton (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Bob Harlan was the first president of the Green Bay Packers without any roots in the Green Bay community? Source: The board ... made Harlan the first non-Green Bay native to lead the franchise in its 71-year history and would consider someone without Green Bay roots as his successor.
  • Reviewed: 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season

Improved to Good Article status by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Bob Harlan; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Promoted to "GA" class on 8/16 satisfying newness requirement. Also plenty long enough, well and neutrally written and sourced. Review of Earwig results checks out fine. Hook is short enough, interesting, and supported by in-line citation to reliable source. QPQ is there. Impressive work. Good to go. Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think "roots" is colloquial and I see it does appear in the second source after the hook sentence in the article. I do not think it is disallowed so I will promote the hook and if there is an issue with "roots" we can solve it in the prep. Bruxton (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)