Talk:Jerry Gill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJerry Gill 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
December 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the Early days section, "After losing in the final, the youngsters indulged in the local beer to the extent that they were arrested and kept in police cells overnight", you need to be clear on who you are talking about. I know what its talking about, but the sentence does not sound encyclopedic. In the Birmingham City section, what do you mean with this ---> "Gill struggled to get into the first team at St Andrew's"?
    Clarified both, I think. Unless you think "indulged in the local beer" too frivolous a wording?
    Its fine, the one with "the youngsters" was the one that caused the problem. Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the lead, it would be best if "Football League One" is linked once, per here.
    Well spotted :-) delinked 2nd occurrence
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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:
    Reference 4 is a dead link.
    Background to the dead link: The author of this book, Neil Kaufman, who is Leyton Orient FC's official historian, allowed the dead site, a member of the Rivals network of fansites, to use post-publication updates to the book. When Rivals was taken over by Sky (a NewsCorp subsidiary) Kaufman understandably refused to hand over the rights to his work, so his pages disappeared. The Internet Archive has the explanatory page of the section, and goes down to the page immediately above the page cited in the article, but annoyingly doesn't have the cited page.
    Perhaps you could advise me: if the link being dead would stop the article becoming GA, then I'll have to lose mention of Ken Knighton, which is a pity, as it indicates why Gill went to Leyton Orient rather than some other club; the rest is either sourced from reference #5 or can be sourced from elsewhere.
    Well, here's my question to you: Is the source worth keeping? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say it is worth keeping. The author of the section within the dead site is as reliable as it gets on his specialist subject, and the information sourced adds to the quality of the article. Struway2 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, then it stays. But let me "warn" you, that if you want to bring this article to FA status, you might have a bit of trouble with the source, so be aware of this ahead of time. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    In the lead, "but can play anywhere across the defence or in midfield" and "His strengths are his professional approach to the game and the enthusiasm and whole-hearted determination he shows on the field" sound like POV and might need to be re-worded. In the Yeovil Town section, "they were an ambitious club", POV.
    Reworded "anywhere across the defence" to "in defence", as "anywhere across" isn't mentioned/cited in the body of the article.
    The lead's supposed to be a concise overview of the article, per WP:LEAD; his professionalism, enthusiasm etc are referred to and cited in managers' quotes throughout the article and particularly in the On and off the field section, so I'd argue they're not POV.
    Removed "ambitious club" as cited source doesn't justify it.
    Well, to a non-football person, that info. above sounded like POV. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at it again, I've reworded to "His various managers view his strengths to be his professional approach...". Thanks for making me have second thoughts :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was just saying. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Struway, who was Casper at first, for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to provide such a helpful review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jerry Gill. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jerry Gill. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jerry Gill. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jerry_Gill&oldid=1202293147"