Talk:Mark Stimson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMark Stimson 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
September 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 3, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Defender or midfielder?[edit]

My recollection of his period on loan at Gillingham was that he was definitely a defender, but he played far more games for Newcastle, Portsmouth and Southend. What position did he usually play there? Kevin McE (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly played as a defender at Southend - see for example this match report and this preview. I'm going to change the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mark Stimson/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 lead, "In 1989" and "In November 2007" add a comma after "1989" and "2007". Same thing in the Playing career, Managerial career and Personal life sections. In the Playing career section, this might be me but this sentence sounds odd ---> "Stimson represented Essex at football".
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:11, 3 October 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 Playing career section, is the link to "Kent" correct? Same section, it would be best if "Second Division" and "Third Division" are linked once, per here. In the Managerial career section, link "Conference South" once. Also, if I missed any links that are linked more than once, please, un-link them.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:11, 3 October 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:
    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:
  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) 19:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, all points now addressed I think. The link to Kent is indeed correct, because Gillingham is in Kent. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I wasn't sure of the link was the correct one. Thank you to ChrisTheDude 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) 16:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manager Stats[edit]

Can't find the Grays Athletic season stats for 2002/2003. Would've been the Ryman Premier. Anyone know where to find them? I'll complete the Manager stats table once I can source the data. TomorrowsDream (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for the Grays and Stevenage stats? That data isn't listed on Soccerbase. Have you done it simply by adding together the clubs' fixtures during the dates concerned? Grays' league/FA Cup/FA Trophy record for the 2002-03 season can be found here, but they probably also played Isthmian League Cup matches, and possibly county cup matches too...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, have added together the data from their official website archives (Grays [1] and Stevenage [2]. Not adept or confident enough to add references. Will have a look at the link you sent - thanks!TomorrowsDream (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you added in mickey mouse competitions like the Essex Senior Cup or Thameside Trophy? I just replaced the link I included above with a better one which will allow you to work out which matches fell after he took over mid-season, but it doesn't include such minor tournaments. Also worth noting is that the W, D and L numbers for Grays, didn't add up to the correct total. I've knocked one off the "losses" column, you might want to double check that was correct..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, put those minor cup games more in the "friendly" category. One other point, Soccerbase counts cup match penalty wins or losses as draws. Is that right / best? I'll need to revise my figures if so.TomorrowsDream (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, matches decided by shoot-outs should be counted as draws, according to the Laws of the Game such matches are officially counted as having been drawn. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all updated with data from Soccerbase including 2002/03 and draws for shoot-outs. Thanks for the help Chris!TomorrowsDream (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mark Stimson. 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) 14:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Stimson. 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) 05:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Stimson&oldid=1209645789"