Talk:Chris Carruthers

Chris Carruthers has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 8, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: England / English non-league Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the English non-league task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Northamptonshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northamptonshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northamptonshire-related articles 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.NorthamptonshireWikipedia:WikiProject NorthamptonshireTemplate:WikiProject NorthamptonshireNorthamptonshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:08, 7 July 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:
In the Bristol Rovers section, first paragraph, is this sentence right ---> "The loan expired in May after playing five times for club"? Is a word missing?
Added "the". Mattythewhite (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the International career section, you might want to link "marking", for your non-football readers, cause I had a hard time understanding that sentence with Carruthers marking Cristiano Ronaldo during that tournament.
Added wikilink. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.
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:
All the BBC links have different url paths, so you might want to update that.
I don't really understand what the problem is with these links; the "(info)" section for each of the URLs state "http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1" redirects to "http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2", but when either is entered into a web browser the former is displayed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know, I've experienced this problem.

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:

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:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Mattythewhite for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]