Talk:Chris Carruthers

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

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 Bristol Rovers section, first paragraph, is this sentence right ---> "The loan expired in May after playing five times for club"? Is a word missing?

   Added "the". Mattythewhite (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the International career section, you might want to link "marking", for your non-football readers, cause I had a hard time understanding that sentence with Carruthers marking Cristiano Ronaldo during that tournament.

   Added wikilink. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

   Check.

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:

   All the BBC links have different url paths, so you might want to update that.

   I don't really understand what the problem is with these links; the "(info)" section for each of the URLs state "http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1" redirects to "http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2", but when either is entered into a web browser the former is displayed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

   Oh, I know, I've experienced this problem.

   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:

   Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to Mattythewhite for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)