Jump to content

Talk:Alan Pringle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LinkedIn

[edit]

Details on his later career on his LinkedIn profile, not sure if that should be added. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 talk 11:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. Nominator has 248 past nominations.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Two QPQs done. Pat Ragusa starting expansion seven days before nomination. No OR or copyvio issues found in use of Gelberg source (although perhaps it doesn't need so many repeat citations). Article is otherwise presentable. Alan Pringle similarly expanded within the week timeframe. Can't access the newspaper sources here, but checked the stats ones and they same in order.
    Hook source is Pro Football Reference, who at a quick look around reliable for simple data. The data at any rate aligns with the prose in the articles. This seems good to go. CMD (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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:Alan Pringle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs) 20:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: WikiOriginal-9 (talk · contribs) 12:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Will review soon. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.