Talk:Scott Doe

GA Review

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

Overall the article is good, however I found a few things to take care of:

• Any information on his personal life? I understand he's not exactly a mainstream football player, but I figure there'd be something out there.
• There's almost an overuse of "he" as opposed to "Doe", which isn't a big deal but may be an issue to some.

Besides that there's nothing really wrong with the article in and of itself. It's short, but it's well-done. I'll put it on hold and give you a few days to fix it. Wizardman 03:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Replies

• • I've searched quite a bit but cannot find much. He's relatively young and only been playing for a two seasons or so.
  • Reworded. I think when writing the article I tried to avoid using "Doe" to much, so overcompensated with "he".

Thanks for the review, --Jimbo^[online] 08:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Fair enough. Since he is young and just starting out, this is an article that you're really gonna have to make sure it watched and updated, since the stability isn't going to be all that great. (However, since the article isn't overly big, new information can be added no problem.) I'll pass the article, just keep that in mind. Wizardman 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wizardman, can you please have a look at this review again because I do not think it passes GA standard and infact I do not think it passes WP:N. I am planning on bringing this article up for deletion but some editors consider it automatically notable because the article has passe a GA review. There is an ongoing discussion here. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know the ins and outs of footy notability guidelines. It can meet GA and fail N for all I know. Wizardman 13:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This GA status certainly needs reconsidered.

• "It is illustrated, if possible and relevant, by images with acceptable copyright status and fair use rationales where necessary." There are no images on the article at all, for an academic topic that would probably be okay but for a real person it isn't. Per previous GA reviews, this should at least have been raised at the review with discussion of difficulty of finding suitable images if applicable.

• "Well written. Prose and layout are clear" The article needs a thorough copyedit. Just a few examples:

"although he is yet to play for the team" should be "although he has yet to play for the team.

"He was refused to join Dagenham on a permanent basis by The Football Association" refused what? refused permission?

"however the the Football League refused" the the football league?! Shouldn't "The" be capitalised as a proper noun?

• "Broad. It covers the main aspects of the topic without going into unnecessary detail." There's nothing whatsoever on his personal background and particularly glaring is the omission of his birthplace. Instead the article does go into a lot of unnecessary detail about his career and appearances, seemingly to pad out what would otherwise be a glorified stub. Valenciano (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter whether or not an article has images. If there's no free one for a BLP, then there actually should not be one. Wizardman 13:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Standard practice at any GA reviews I've been involved in is that if there is no image then this is discussed at the review. It wasn't at this one. Why not? Valenciano (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)