Talk:Ed Hochuli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ed Hochuli has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed November 10, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Sports and games work group. More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: The article's fine, but in the photo Ed's wearing long sleeves. There needs to be a photo in short sleeves showing off the famous guns! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.121.181 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (edit) National Football League WikiProject (Rated GA-Class) American football Portal This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. See comments College football WikiProject      (Rated GA-Class) College football Portal Ed Hochuli is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Assessment Comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) The article's fine, but in the photo Ed's wearing long sleeves. There needs to be a photo in short sleeves showing off the famous guns! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.121.181 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC) WikiProject Texas (Rated GA-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject Arizona (Rated GA-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as GA-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Organized Labour     (Rated GA-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Organized Labour Portal GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Assessment comments.
This article has an assessment summary page.

[edit] External Link?

The second external link supposedly goes to an article on Hochuli being puzzled about his celebrity status, but instead goes to a short article explaining who the crew for that Superbowl will be, and how they were chosen. Darquis 18:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you may be confused about which citation method is currently being used on this article. Footnotes are not being used. Instead it is embedded HTML citations with a seperate external links section. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring about the Palm Beach Post article, I had to remove the external link because they removed from public view.[1] It may be best to move it a "further reading" section. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stan Kemp

Who's the fucking genius who provided the 'Stan Kemp' link? It goes to a list of one-time NHLers. Seriously, what is the matter with you guys? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakomull (talk • contribs) 08:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, if you find something wrong then fix it! Be BOLD! That's the beauty of Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. RyguyMN 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations; this article has passed the GA nomination process! It's obvious a lot of work has gone into it...it's outstanding. I was really impressed with the quality of the references, and how his personality and life outside of football are so well integrated into the article.

Looking towards the future, the non-free status of the pictures currently included might hold it back from A or FA status. Playing devil's advocate, I could imagine someone arguing, "you could just go to a game and take his picture, so it's not impossible to get a free alternative." Also, I would suggest only listing the lowest and highest seniority per-game salary levels in the examples of offical's pay before the 2001 contract agreement.

Thanks for your great contribution to Wikipedia, and good luck with the article in the future! Monowi 08:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to review this article. It was fun to clean up. I've changed the salary information to make it a range between a rookie official and twenty-year veteran official. RyguyMN 16:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)