# Talk:Thaddeus Coleman

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thaddeus Coleman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://esks.com/roster/show/id/6349
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thaddeus Coleman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: WikiOriginal-9 (talk · contribs) 17:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: OceanGunfish (talk · contribs) 01:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I will give this a shot. This is my first review, and I have familiarized myself with the reviewer instructions and GA criteria to prepare. OceanGunfish (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Coleman was also a member of the New York Jets of the NFL, the Edmonton Eskimos, Winnipeg Blue Bombers, Saskatchewan Roughriders, and Toronto Argonauts of the CFL, the Chicago Rush, Orlando Predators, New Orleans VooDoo, and San Jose SaberCats of the AFL, the Virginia Destroyers of the United Football League, and the RiverCity Rage of the Indoor Football League. Per MOS:SEMICOLON (fifth example), this list should be punctuated with semicolons instead of commas in between each series of teams in a common league. For example, Team A, B, and C of League 1; Team D of League 2; etc
Perhaps "unselected" instead of "undrafted" in the first sentence of the Professional career section?
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

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): 
Spot-checked refs: 3, 10, 17, 21, 27, 34 OK
Ref 35 is a dead link and is the only source for the sentence it cites.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
5.7% score on Earwig, indicating violation unlikely.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

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

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

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

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: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Looks pretty good. A couple minor grammatical issues to address and we'll be good to go. OceanGunfish (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Think I addressed everything. I added a Facebook ref to make up for the dead link. That's all I could find. It's from the City of Edmonton though. Seems reliable enough for this claim. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
 Passed OceanGunfish (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)