Talk:David Hamilton (footballer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Well done.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:
There's a dead link.

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:
Are Saddlers, clarets-mad.co.uk, fchd.info, and mossleyweb.com reliable sources?

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
In the Playing career section, this ---> "Despite this success with his country" sounds like POV.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Are there no free images of Hamilton available?
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do. If the above queries can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

That dead link (fchd.info) should be sorted in a couple of days, the owner's just having some problems with the site hosts. It's generally regarded as a reliable reference and has been used in several GAs and FLs. If it doesn't get sorted, I'm sure I can find another source pretty quickly.
- Okay, I'll take your word for it. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Saddlers website is the official site of Walsall F.C. and it's now only used for one citation, but I can take it out if you want. I've replaced most of it with a couple of newspaper articles.
- Just needed to know.
Have found alternative sources for Clarets-mad (have used a couple of pages from a book I own)
- Check.
Mossleyweb is the official site of Mossley F.C., and as far as I'm aware it's the only source of Mossley player stats either online or in print. Again, I can remove it and the stats if you want.
- No, I was just wondering if they are reliable or not. If they are, then there's no problem.
Have tried to sort out that bit of POV you pointed out.
- Actually, the more I read it, the more I come to realize is not POV.
I've searched high and low for a free image of Hamilton, but to no avail thus far. There's a photo request on the talk page, but nothing else I can do on this point.
- Just needed to know.

If there's any more problems I'll happily address them. Cheers for reviewing the article, Big Dom 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the review. After looking over the article, I would like to thank Big Doom for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]