Jump to content

Talk:Willie Irvine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWillie Irvine 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
August 7, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 28, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 5, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Willie Irvine was the Football League First Division's top goalscorer in the 1965–66 season?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Willie Irvine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: two found and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Good prose, well structured.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Two dead links as noted above
    Otherwise well referenced, no OR, spotchecks show sources support cites, RS, assume good faith for ofline sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Excellent coverage.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    stable
  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):
    Licences and captions OK, pity there is no picture of the subject.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    JUst relacements needed for the Lancashire Telegraph article which is not archived at the Internet Archive. I expect that you can find replacements. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Arbero fixed the dead links; the website had just moved the pages. I didn't realise and messed things up, but it's all fixed now. Thanks for the review, just let me know if anything else needs fixing. Cheers, BigDom 09:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, all good now, happy to list. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.