Talk:Stanley Matthews/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk • contribs • count) 02:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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

Checking against GA criteria

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)

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)

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)

   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)

I believe I have resolved your concerns. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Cheers.--EchetusXe 11:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)