Talk:Bradford Dudley Hill

Rugby league Mid‑importance

	Bradford Dudley Hill is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Bradford Dudley Hill is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bradford Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bradford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bradford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BradfordWikipedia:WikiProject BradfordTemplate:WikiProject BradfordBradford articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Pegr.gif

Image:Pegr.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

Could be improved with photographs, wikifying the sections and having a more neutral point of view. Tim Fellows 05:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is way short of being a neutral point of view. Some of the content is too 'chatty' to be included in an encyclopedia. With a good re write and NPOV and citations, it has the makings of a good article, but at the moment falls well short of that. RichardLowther (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article is full of peacock words, vague generalities and lacks citations to verify much of the information. The various lists of "rolls of honour" have no place in Wikipedia, and would be better on the club's website. Any remaining list should give some indication of the criteria for inclusion. I have made a start on questioning some of the sloppier sections, but the whole history section needs a complete overhaul and culling.

I realise that it is not easy to get the tone right on your first Wikipedia article (especially as usually there appears to be nobody around to help), and would be prepared to help the authors, or any other interested editors, in knocking this into shape. There is an awful lot of work to do on it. Anyone wanting help, leave a message on my talk page. I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire suggesting this as a possibility for a future collaboration project. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have now given the article a thorough workover, cutting out a lot of details that really weren't noteworthy, and giving it a neutral point of view. However, as far as I can see, the only source for anything in the article is the club website's history section (and various mirrors of that). Neutral verification is required, if possible, along with inline citations (there didn't seem much point putting inline citations in when they are all exactly the same). Skinsmoke (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bradford Dudley Hill. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160816232825/http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/bradforddudleyhillarlfc to http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/bradforddudleyhillarlfc

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) 06:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]