Talk:Phil Edwards (footballer)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: EchetusXe (talk • contribs • count) 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   clear and concise; if in the future you are planning to take this article to FA status then phrases like 'is a defender, currently playing for' could be improved to meet professional standard. Some sections switch violently between past and present tense, but I am just finding faults here, and it passes as clear and concise.--EchetusXe 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Is he from Bootle (as stated in the infobox) or Kirkby (as listed in the category section)? Soccerbase says Kirkby, so a reference would be needed for the Bootle assertion.--EchetusXe 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Could do with a 'Style of play' section, but I will not demand it.--EchetusXe 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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):

   Added caption myself in the copy-edit.--EchetusXe 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   One minor issue to work out within seven days, should that be resolved then the article will pass.--EchetusXe 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Article meets criteria. Congratulations! For further improvements try adding a 'style of play' section.--EchetusXe 13:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you for taking the time out to give such a thorough response/evaluation of the article. Sorry about my lack of cooperation regarding pushing this article to GA status — I made some small changes yesterday, which I then forgot to notify you about. I will add a "style of play" section as soon as I gather my references together. Thanks again. --SBFCEdit (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)