Talk:Ronnie Wallwork/GA1

GA Review

I'll be reviewing this article at some point today, any additional comments from other reviewers are welcome. -AMBerry (t|c) 12:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Lead:

• "United loaned out Wallwork to Carlisle United, Stockport County and Royal Antwerp." sounds a bit choppy to me, possibly link this sentence to the following one (i.e. ...Royal Antwerp, where he was banned from football...)?
  • Amended this one. Peanut4 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've re-jigged it further, please let me know what you think (or if Peanut4's edit was better I'll go with that... whichever really) --Jameboy (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I much prefer yours. Peanut4 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. -AMBerry (t|c) 09:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Manchester United

• The opening sentence on Wallwork's loan spell at Antwerp could possibly do with rephrasing, at the moment it doesn't quite sound right.

Because of the two relative clauses? Changed it around, let me know if it's OK. --Jameboy (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds much better now, thanks. -AMBerry (t|c) 09:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

West Bromwich Albion

• "The move [to Huddersfield] was prompted by Town's escalating injury crisis." Is there a source for this statement?
  • Good question. The only sources I can find [1] and [2] suggest he was brought in for his experience. I'll wait for User:Jameboy, the original nominator, to see what he thinks. Peanut4 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence. An article on the Huddersfield Town site mentions a couple of players suffering from "illness", which is a bit non-descript. However it is just one of several loan spells he completed and the reasons aren't particularly important IMO. If you disagree then I'll happily pop in a quote from (Huddersfield manager) Andy Ritchie, mentioning (as Peanut4 says) Wallwork's experience. --Jameboy (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Apart from those points above I can't see anything that would prevent GA, so it's on hold for now. -AMBerry (t|c) 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Well done to everyone who contributed. -AMBerry (t|c) 09:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)