# Talk:Taurean Allen

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taurean Allen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bcschneider53 (talk · contribs) 16:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll take this. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Lead
Again, I know this is a very short article, but is there any way we can get the lead to be more than just three sentences? If you're having too much trouble with this, don't worry about it.
I usually forget to go back and flesh out the lead when done with an article, my apologies. I've added a bit of detail, but this one is harder to get to two paragraphs. There's a few more sentences there now, in any event. Refs moved out of the lead. ~ Rob13Talk 18:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


### Early career
No issues.


### Professional career
"Allen saw his ranking increase to 8th place" change to "eighth" as single-digit numbers should be spelled out.
 Done I've also changes 13th --> thirteenth because having 13th and eighth looks a bit off. ~ Rob13Talk 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
"Going into the draft, Allen was reported to be the fastest cornerback available for selection." IC needed; is it supposed to be the Waterloo Chronicle source?
Yes, this is supported by the Waterloo Chronicle; I've double-checked the source to confirm. Would you like me to add a second inline cite to the Chronicle? I usually try to avoid those on two consecutive sentences if the cite is the same. ~ Rob13Talk 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It's up to you, but I would prefer a second IC. I figured it was the Waterloo Chronicle source, but it took me a bit to work that out. Also, the sentence includes the phrase "reported to be" which made me immediately think "reported by who?", a question that was not clearly answered because of the lack of an IC. It won't stop this from being a GA, but I would go ahead and add it. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
"Starting safety Wes Lysack was released" Remove Wes per WP:SURNAME as he was already mentioned in this section.
 Done ~ Rob13Talk 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
"including Eric Fraser, Milt Collins, Mark Holden, and Saleem Borhot." Fraser has no link and Holden is red-linked. I'd prefer if either both were red-linked or neither one was.
Fraser isn't redlinked because his redlink appears earlier in the section, per MOS:DUPLINK. ~ Rob13Talk 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that! Thanks for pointing that out. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
"He ultimately didn't play" did not.
 Done ~ Rob13Talk 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
"The Leader-Post cited his injuries" Did any specific writer say this? If so, change it to The Leader-Post's [insert author name] cited" or "[insert author name] of The Leader-Post cited"
 Done ~ Rob13Talk 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


### Later life
I know you said these guys pretty much drop off the face of the earth after they retire, but is there a better source we could use for this section than a personal social networking page?
Sadly, no, can't find any source. This was the best I had for anything post-career. ~ Rob13Talk 18:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Not too far off. On hold for the standard seven days. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: Should be good for another look. Please note I had a question about what you wanted for the inline cite above. ~ Rob13Talk 18:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Great work. See my note above and choose what you want to do, but otherwise, another pass. Cheers, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bcschneider53: I've added that cite. In addition to your reasoning, the claim that someone is the fastest at their position is potentially controversial, so on further thought a second inline cite is a good idea in this circumstance. Thank you again for a speedy review! ~ Rob13Talk 00:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)