Talk:Lawrie Wilson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLawrie Wilson 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
October 14, 2010Good article nomineeListed

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you please reformat the WP:LEAD so that it has two or three respectable paragraphs. The first one line paragraph is malformed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never reviewed an article about someone across the pond that really seemed to be written in a different form of English. Your writing sounds like it is the Queen's English rather than incorrect so I am not going to muss with it too much. How ever in the WP:LEAD both instances of the word "but" follow commas. In the english I am use to this usage is ungrammatical because it indicates that the second phrase is an independent phrase, while removing the comma would indicate it is a dependent phrase (The verb works with the noun from the prior phrase). If the Queen's English is different you can leave it, but I think it is probably even ungrammatical in your English.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, thanks for taking the time out to review the article. I find your comments on this a little bit confusing, but interesting, as this isn't written in any "type of English" - simply written in the correct form of English. I've produced about five or six GA articles so far, and one thing that is generally never questioned is the prose and grammar of the article. Infact, having read the article over again, I think it reads fantastically well – probably better than any other article I have produced. I would just put this down to differences between what you're used to and what I'm used to. Articles I have worked on such as Steve Morison and Mark Roberts have both been written in a similar style, and the grammar of those respective articles has never been in question. Your comments are interesting nonetheless. --SBFCEdit 02:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I continue reading I notice that all conjunctions seem to be proceeded with commas even if the succeeding phrase is dependent. Please let me know your thoughts on this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, interesting. This is something that is common in England, I have always done it, and was the way I was taught to in school! --SBFCEdit 02:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "substitute's bench" mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Substitute's bench is where the substitute footballers will sit when the game is being played. They can then be substituted onto the pitch, replacing a member of the first-team. I have now linked it.--SBFCEdit 02:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there links for " full back position and at right midfield", goal, goalkeeping error, assists, red card.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for highlighting this. Have all been linked.--SBFCEdit 02:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do "on aggregate", "FA Trophy fixtures" and "bookable offences" mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On aggregate means the score over two legs/games – an aggregate scoreline is a pretty common phrase in most sports. FA Trophy fixtures are the games that are played in the FA Trophy, which has already been linked in the article. The term 'bookable offences' means receiving a yellow card, which has now linked in the article.--SBFCEdit 02:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I am ignoring many stylistic differences that I think stem from differences in usage of British speakers and American ones.
  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):
    No images at this point.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am comfortable with this work and am passing it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lawrie Wilson. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrie Wilson. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lawrie_Wilson&oldid=1201410493"