Jump to content

Talk:Richard Pacquette

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRichard Pacquette 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
DateProcessResult
June 30, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Nationalism

[edit]

This edit is based on no consensus of which I am aware. Indeed, it's been generally agreed on WT:FOOTY that the opposite is true, and that in general we should avoid branding people as being of particular nationalities just because of the football team they play for. Paquette is evidently not Dominican, so we shouldn't be saying that he is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make more sense for the lead to read "English-born Dominican international footballer". Non? Mattythewhite (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way we handle this is other articles is usually to provide his birth place in the brackets with his age (so that it's obvious where he's from), leave the international stuff to the third paragraph (which is fine as it is) and avoid using labels like "English" or "Dominican" or whatever unless the person self-identifies as being a certain nationality. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's in the MoS that the POB is not to be placed in the brackets in the lead, so we certainly don't do that. (I'm struggling to find a link for that, but it seems to be accepted practice) Never knew we were meant to duck the issue of nationalities in the lead when it is ambiguous; that's something I've never seen before. However, I've seen many articles that use footballing nationality in the lead under these circumstances, such as Darron Gibson and Patrice Evra, to name two. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm astounded that the Gibson article isn't subject to edit warring over that issue. Evra self-identifies as French. In this case, where the current version is evidently nonsensical (Pacquette is evidently not Dominican) it makes sense simply to strip the offending adjective. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So as an update here, I still don't see why we have to mention his international caps (all two of them) in the first sentence of the article. Furthermore, that he was only selected in 2008 doesn't mean that he's not still available for selection: as such, there should be an ndash after "2008" to indicate that he's still potentially a Dominica player. Lastly, if an infobox attribute is not available it should be left blank, not filled in with "TBA" or "unknown" or whatever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Pacquette/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article. Check back for further comments. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria

[edit]
  1. Has reliable sources
  2. Is written neutrally
  3. No valid cleanup tags
  4. Is relatively stable with no edit wars
  5. Not specifically concerned with a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint
The article passes the quick fail criteria, so a more detailed review will follow. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full review

[edit]
  • Just to explain this out, I list any problems I find with the article under the criterion of the GA criteria, i.e. spelling mistakes under 1a (prose).
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • Criterion 1a (prose)
  1. Shouldn't "is a Dominica international" be "is a Dominican international"?
  1. Fixed. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Explain the abbreviation QPR at the first mention of Queen's Park Rangers, i.e. it should Queen's Park Rangers (QPR)
  1. Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "sent off" - I take you mean he was given a red card, but this should be clarified a little. Also, if you can say why he was sent off.
  1. Reworded and added wikilink. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The first sentence of the second paragraph should be rearranged in my opinion. Talk about his appearances for QPR, then his transfer to Stevenage Borough. It makes more sense to do it chronologically.
  1. Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "He finished the loan spell with nine appearances and scored four goals" doesn't sound right grammatically to me. Perhaps rewording it to "He finished the loan spell having scored four goals in nine appearances" or something along those lines.
  1. Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "finished the spell" -- clarify this to "finished the loan spell".
  1. Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is there any reason given for his release from QPR? Was it his request, did he have attitude problems, any quote from him or the manager regarding his release?
  1. Can't find anything. There usually isn't a specific reason given when a player is released. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Explain the abbreviation MK Dons at the first mention of Milton Keynes Dons, i.e. it should Milton Keynes Dons (MK Dons)
  1. Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are quite a few releases from various clubs in the nest few paragraphs, and only two of them have reasons or explanations as to why (left Fisher Athletic to sign for Brentford; left Brentford by mutual consent). If they're available, the others should be added.
  1. Haven't been able to see any particular reasons; I would assume it is because he was surplus to requirements, but this has not been specified. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Any date for him joining Hampton & Richmond Borough.?
  1. Added. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Any date for him joining Havant & Waterlooville?
  1. Added. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "putting Havant 1–0 in the lead on eight minutes, before eventually losing 5–2" --> "utting Havant 1–0 in the lead on eight minutes, before they eventually lost 5–2".
  1. Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Did he score any goals for Maidenhead in the 08-09 season before moving to Histon?
  1. He will have, but I've been unable to find any stats. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. His international career section is very short. I realise that he's only played for Dominica twice, but is there any other information that could be added, for example:
  1. Did he play at youth level for an international team? Under-17s, etc.
  2. He was born in England, so wouldn't he be eligible to play for England? Why did he choose to play for Dominica?
  3. Any quotes from him how his international debut felt?
  4. Any quotes from the manager/press about how he played in those two matches?
  1. I've added a quote from the manager after Pacquette made his debut. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Again, the personal life section is very short.
  1. Any information on his early life, siblings, school, college, any youth teams he played for? Did he play his school team?
  2. Any mention of his lovelife? Wife, etc?
  3. Is he involved in any charity work, or any campaigns like the Show Racism The Red Card campaign?
  1. Expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's still a little short I think. What about heroes/anyone who inspired him to play football? Anything like that? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've found some information from a newspaper article that seems relevant. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yep, looks good. I found this too, it has some info about him coaching a school team among other things which I think can be added. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Excellent. I'll do a final read-through in a little while to see if I missed anything the first time around. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion 1b (MOS compliance)
  1. The lead is a little too short for my liking, but I'm not sure how much you can expand it out. For an article of 36 kilobytes, it really should be three good sized paragraphs.
  1. I've had a go at expanding the lead. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes, that's better. Well done. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion 2a (references)
  1. Reference 56 [1] says Pacquette went on as a substitute on 75 minutes, but the article says 74. Needs to be corrected.
  1. Corrected. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Reference 65 [2] doesn't mention Pacquette at all. Is that an error on your part, or because he wasn't used at all (even as an unused sub) during the season?
  1. That's because he indeed wasn't used during the season. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well, that's fine then. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion 2b (reliable source)
  1. What makes nonleaguedaily.com a reliable source?
  1. I'm not terribly clued up on defining what makes a source reliable, but would this mention of the website on the BBC help establish its reliability? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No, I don't think so, because it's simply quoting an interview. I can't find any information on who contributes to the site or what fact checking goes on, except that they accept fans' reports [3], which I believe would disqualify them as a reliable source. Unless it is an interview, I think the references should be changed if possible. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The "Contact Us" page gives credit to the website's editor. With regards to the fans' contribution, I think they would send in the details of a possible story and the people working at the website itself will write the story (presuming they have adequate sources). Mattythewhite (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well, User:ChrisTheDude has just pointed out that it is the website of a national newspaper, which nllifies most of my concerns about it, so problem solved. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What makes national-football-temas.com a reliable source?
  1. The "credits" page of the website mentions all of the individuals who participated in the compilation of their information. Does this have any bearing on its reliability? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes, it does. A reliable source is a "published material with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". The fact that it lists it's contributors like that, and says what else they contribute to, helps to establish reliability in my eyes. If you were planning to take the article to FA, I would probably recommend changing it, but it's not necessary for GA. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion 6b - (image captions)
  1. Just a minor thing really, but can a caption be added to the infobox?
  1. Apparently so, and I've added one. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comments
    • I am placing this article on hold for seven days to allow you to fix the problems listed. If the work is completed before then, I will pass the article before the seven days are up. If no attempts are made to correct the problems, I will fail the article in seven days. If you are not finished, I have no problem in extending the hold period to allow you to finish, as long as I see work is being carried out on the article.
    • To make it easier for me to see how much work has been done, please either strike each comment when the problem has been fixed or post a note underneath each item saying it is completed.
    • Feel free request to clarification on anything; you can leave comments on my talk page or here, as I have this page watchlisted.
♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final read-through

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Richard Pacquette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Pacquette. 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:

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) 05:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Pacquette. 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:

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) 14:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Pacquette&oldid=1206382103"