Jump to content

Talk:Stanley Matthews/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk contribs count) 02:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: England Schoolboys in the infobox needs disambiguating, I was unable to determine the correct target. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: Repaired 2 and tagged one deadlink.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to post a full review within 48 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
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):
    The article is reasonably well written, I made a few minor copyedits, but there are a large number of single sentences and short paragraphs, which should be consolidated into paragraphs.
    The Testimonials section is a list and would better incorporated into another section.
I merged the smaller paragraphs and incorporated the testimonials elsewhere.--EchetusXe 11:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Ref #161[2] just redirects to the home [page and does not support the statement
    The majority of citations are to a primary source, his autobiography. This is likely to become a concern if you take this to FAC.
    All sources appear to be RS
Well spotted, I changed the text a bit to give a fuller account of his son, and used appropriate, working references I found on the player's article.--EchetusXe 10:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Broad and thorough
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. 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):
    One image used with a suitable non-free use rationale
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days for issues above to be sorted out. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, all in order now. I am happy to list this as a Good Article. Congratulations! PS. I was there when Stoke beat Luton to win promotion and I can still remember his swerve and his goal. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have resolved your concerns. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Cheers.--EchetusXe 11:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]