Talk:Russell Ebert

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Russell Ebert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://au.geocities.com/jsmooth_00001/Footyfacts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118064156/http://www.portmagpies.com.au/ to http://www.portmagpies.com.au/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928042351/http://prod.www.afl.cfour.com.au/Season2007/Awards/HallofFame/Players/tabid/856/Default.aspx to http://prod.www.afl.cfour.com.au/Season2007/Awards/HallofFame/Players/tabid/856/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Issues:

• Some problems with missing references. These need to be supplied:
  • Fourth paragraph of "Port Adelaide (1968–1978)" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The rest of the players in "Port Adelaide non-playing coach (1986–1987)" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph of "South Australia coach (1996–1998)" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • First paragraph of "Playing style" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • First paragraph of "Media" - Done Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Fifth paragraph of "Honours" - DoneThejoebloggsblog (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Suggest combing the short paragraphs in "Port Adelaide community programs" - DoneThejoebloggsblog (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2022 (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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   See above

   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:

   Article is very good. Will pass if the issues with referencing are resolved.

@Thejoebloggsblog: Any progress? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 18 August 2022 (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.