Talk:David Beharall

GA

This article appears to meet all the requirements of GA status. Nice work. Da54 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a very thorough review to me. --Jameboy (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:David Beharall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. There are a few relatively problems with this article and if the editors require I can provide some pointers to help, drop a line on my talk page. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is good, a 8/10.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

I'm passing this now, but there is a significant problem here: Behrall's personal life and life after football is totally lacking. For someone who retired so recently I am prepared to pass this now, but as standards rise this may be delisted in future if this information is not incorporated.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

Obviously, an image would be nice.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Personal life

Although I only passed this article at GAR recently, I'm afraid that I made an error and the article should have been placed on hold. The problem is that this article does not have any information on its subject's life outside their sporting career. After a discussion (linked below) on this issue, it was agreed that such information is mandatory for a GA and therefore it will have to be incorporated into the article. I have provided a guide to assist in the development of this information within the article and will wait seven days. If no action has been taken at the end of that period, then I will begin another formal Good Article Reassessment based around this issue (although any new problems or old ones missed during the original review may be raised as well at that time). The relevant wikiproject will be notified and the article will have another seven days in which work on this problem must have begun or it will face delisting. Anyone genuinely trying to solve the problem will be granted as much time as needed, and anyone who disputes the process or outcome of the review is welcome to take it to WP:GAR for wider community comment. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal life guide

In order for an article on a sports person to qualify for GA, it must contain information on their life outside sports (per this discussion). This can be incorporated into the article in a number of ways, of which the most common (but by no means the only) is to provide two sections. One immediately under the introduction that describes the person's early life prior to their sporting career, and a second after their career to date is described, that covers non-sporting information during their career (and possibly afterwards). These sections should be formed of at least one (and preferably more) complete paragraphs of several sentences, written in readable prose and properly referenced to reliable sources. A good example of this can be seen at Brian Urlacher.

For some sports people (e.g. David Beckham), their life outside of their sporting career is a significant part of their notability: these are special cases which have to be dealt with individually. However, the non-sporting life of all sports persons, alive or dead, is relevant and important to their article - these are biographies, not descriptions solely of their sporting achievements.

Examples of what to include (this list is by no means exhaustive, neither is it a checklist. Not all of this information has to be included, just anything that applies to the person in question):

• In early life, it would be useful to describe the date and place of their birth, their parentage and family background, their experiences growing up and the places in which they grew up, schools they attended, youth teams they played for, and any significant events in their lives that affected them.
• Personal life should always include information on their family: wife and children. Not the kind of information that would violate BLP (particularly where it applies to children: we shouldn't be told where they go to school for example!) but enough so that we can understand the family of the article's subject. Similarly, many contemporary sports people are famous for relationships that do not end in marriage: relationship speculation often appears in the media and if significant enough can appear in the article.
• Negative stuff: drug problems (both sporting and recreational), illegal activities (including fighting and driving offences), gambling problems, extra-martial affairs, becoming victims of robbery or attack, racist abuse (both from and against) and other possibly unsavoury incidents (this is not to suggest that this particular sports person has done any of these things, this is a guide for sports people in general). No Original Research please! All allegations must have appeared in the mainstream media before they can appear here and must be appropriately cited to a reliable source. Significant unproven or unfounded allegations should also be included: see Tony Parker for an example of how these should be dealt with.
• Positive stuff: many sports personalities do charity work - this is not always widely published, but can appear on club websites and similar. Sports people are often an advocates for, supporters of or opponents of charities, advocacy groups or social and political movements: this applies both to issues within sports (cheating, drugs etc.) and outside (disease, gang violence, drugs etc.) and is usually an interesting insight into a person's character.
• Most sports people have other forms of income. This can take the form of a second (or sometimes a "day") job (e.g. Bobby Charlton was once an electrical fitter and Rory Underwood a fighter pilot). Many sports people have investments in businesses, shares and products, which, if reported, are often significant aspects of their lives outside sport. Likewise, their endorsements, advertisements and sponsors are important: what products do/have they endorsed, what advertisments have they appeared in and in which media. In addition, information about any books they have published, TV appearances made and any work as newspaper or blog correspondants are important additions.
• Sports persons can also appear in the media for a range of reasons that have noting to do with the above: car crashes, housing problems and professional feuds are among the many issues that may have made the news and might merit inclusion.

As mentioned, this list is far from exhaustive and neither is everything on it essential: its more a guide providing ideas for research into the person's life outside sports. For any contemporary or recent sports person, google should provide enough to develop a basic section and for older ones, news articles and books can give plenty of information about their personal lives.

Some sports people are known for a determination to keep their private life private and it may be that very little information can be found about them. In such cases, there will be sources discussing their reluctance to release details about their private life and these can be used as sources in a paragraph talking about their efforts to avoid publicity.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Following further discussion, I will hold off on conducting a new review for now, but this may well come up in future. Please improve the article as soon as possible.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)