Talk:Eddie Fox

1940 portrait

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/141821589

Not sure if in the US public domain though. Jenks24 (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. Note that this closure should not block further moves if one determines that a dab page (i.e. if the draft is submitted, reviewed, and accepted) is more appropriate. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Eddie Fox (footballer) → Eddie Fox – proposing to remove unnecessary disambiguation from the title. Eddie Fox was created as a redirect to List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants, but is not currently mentioned in the article. I can find no significant coverage of him in reliable sources as a contestant, and three years on, there seems little chance of there being an article created about him, per WP:BLP1E. Wikishovel (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Move Eddie Fox is only a redirection with neither separate article nor reliable sources for immediate prospective article creation. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Yeah move and add a hatnote. Didn't even think about it when creating the article to be honest, just saw the base title was blue so added the disambiguation. Jenks24 (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support or at least make a DAB given the other isn't it seems notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Draft:Ed Fox disambig draft -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support article at base name, probably delete the redirect and use a hatnote to point the survivor one to the relevant section. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Reviewing; good work on the article!

Tails Wx 02:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Jenks24 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 17:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review; it will be used in the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

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

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   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:

   For the purposes of the WP:PRIMARY policy (see below)

   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:

My first question: this article appears to be entirely sourced to primary sources. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." For this reason, I am inclined to quickfail this article per criterion 1): it is a long way from meeting the original research policy. Do you have anything to say in the article's defence? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The nominator appears to be inactive, so I will go ahead and fail this nomination after a week. Aside from the primary source issues, the article looks to be in good shape; I checked a few citations, and source-text integrity looked good. Prose good, two images probably more than what could be expected, more detailed than some articles on modern athletes I have reviewed recently. But without the usage of secondary sources which summarize and weigh content, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR is hard to determine. A shame, this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.