Talk:David Lapsley/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Harrias ^talk 14:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
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):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

I'm afraid to say that article is a long way off Good article status. I'm not going to provide an in-depth review, as I think the overall fixes are so major that anything specific would probably be changed anyway. The main issues for me are:

Referencing: the article is very sparsely referenced. A lot of claims and 'stories' are told that are unreferenced, providing no verifiability. I understand that you are the grandson(?) of the subject, so presumably you know of what happened to the subject. However, for it to be included in Wikipedia, you really need to be able to provide sources, either online or offline for these. Also, the final reference you provide is no longer available online.
Neutral point of view: phrases like "were first to be rewarded with Lapsley's footballing talents" are not encyclopedic, and definitely provide bias; all terms like this would need to be altered before considering re-submitting.
Lead: per WP:LEAD, the lead should provide a summary of the article; yours provides a statement, nothing more to assert the subject's notability.
Quantity: although the good article criteria allows for short articles without a comprehensive coverage of the subject, your article seems quite sparse for a footballer who had such a long career.

Hopefully, you won't be too put off by this review; while it isn't a Good Article, it is still a good article, and with (admittedly a fair bit of) work, it can eventually become Good, the biggest problem is your lack of verifiability. Harrias ^talk 20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]