Talk:Scott Neilson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleScott Neilson 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
October 7, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Career figures[edit]

I've removed the statistics in the infobox for Neilson's career at Hertford Town and Ware. There are no sources in the page that provide correct league statistics for his career at either club. Until those can be provided, please don't add the statistics again. If you believe the figures are already in the page, please provide further evidence here. 91.106.110.171 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added back the Hertford figures having found and added a source from the club website. 91.106.110.171 (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scott Neilson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few basic comments below, as I read through the article. I apologize in advance if these are dumb questions.

  • Is his brother notable enough for an article on his own? If not, it seems out of place to mention that he played on the same team.
    • Tony Neilson does not meet the various criteria for an article. I think it's worthy to say they played on the same team. It certainly doesn't happen with many brothers. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I adjusted the wording in the paragraph a bit, just to avoid the use of "Scott". Canada Hky (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "non-league" like exhibition games?
    • I've added a link. Basically, it's all divisions below the four fully professional leagues. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the early life section, one sentence paragraphs should be avoided if possible. Is there anything else about his adult life that could be added, or could this be merged into the preceding paragraph?
  • Does "on the books" mean that he was being paid by the team, or does this have another meaning in football (soccer) parlance?
    • It does indeed. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now my next question - is this considered jargon? Canada Hky (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possibly. I've amended to better prose. Brad78 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fee remained undisclosed – although was later revealed to be £20,000 by another manager Martin Ling[32] – but included a 25 per cent sell-on fee." That sentence is confusing. Does this "The fee was undisclosed at the time of the bid, but opposing manager Martin Ling later revealed it to be £20,000, including a 25 percent sell-on fee." keep the same meaning? Also, what is a sell-on fee?
    • I've changed the text. Hopefully it makes better sense. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "League Two-side" - is that hyphen needed?
    • Indeed not. Removed. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also removed one where it said "Conference-side" - I hope that was a similar situation.Canada Hky (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the playing style section - "improve his crossing" - can that be clarified at all?
    • Not really. The source just says he was told to "work on [my] crosses". I've slightly reworded to try and improve the phrase. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a soccer neophyte - is that like kicking, or positioning? Or is it just a generally ambiguous statement? Canada Hky (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kicking. I've found and added a link, if you think that helps. Brad78 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference #1 has no publisher information.

There's a start, I realize some of these things can likely be explained, rather than actually need a change. Canada Hky (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks very much for taking time to review this. I've replied to all the points above. If there's anything else I can help with, let me know. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a couple more minor issues that arose. Everything else has been crossed out as it was addressed or explained. Canada Hky (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

All the issues above have been addressed, and I am listing Scott Neilson as a Good Article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Not applicable
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Not applicable
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Congrats on the good article, and thanks for helping out and addressing the review issues quickly.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Neilson&oldid=1207365045"