Talk:Clarke Carlisle/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: WFCforLife (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead

 * regualrly --> regularly
 * I'm not sure about the Britain's Brainiest Footballer bit in the lead. The way its written implies that it was somewhat formal. My suggestion would be to either clarify that it's a TV programme, or drop it from the lead.

Blackpool

 * Well written. The only suggestion I have is that where you are mentioning specific events, (first goal, first card), it might be worth referencing the soccerbase match details for the specific games. ( and ).

Queens Park Rangers

 * Comma after the first mention of Gerry Francis.
 * No need for "However, " in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
 * "Carlisle eventually returned to"...

Leeds United

 * "He was offered a new contract by Queens Park Rangers, but he was keen to return to northern England and cut short his summer holiday in Tenerife to sign for the Yorkshire outfit, becoming manager Kevin Blackwell's second signing of the summer after Danny Pugh." A bit long winded. Consider recasting into two sentences.
 * I'm not sure whether to mention it here or in the Watford section, but perhaps worth mentioning that Aidy Boothroyd was a coach at Leeds in 2004–05
 * I can't put my finger on the problem, but this section implies that he was a bit-part player. The thing is, despite injury and suspension he played 35 games. That's a pretty significant proportion of the matches. Were a lot of his appearances as a substitute?

Watford and the non-league team

 * Perhaps worth moving the transfer situation up to the Leeds section for balance, and starting this section with the sentence "Watford manager Aidy Boothroyd was pleased with the signing [of Carlisle]," I say this because while I don't see anything irrelevant, the section initially struck me as being a bit long.
 * Maybe mention that Spring had also joined Luton from Watford that season, after failing to get into the Watford team in the Premier League? Could just be my POV, but even if Luton and Watford weren't rivals that strikes me as at least an interesting coincidence.

Burnley

 * "regular fixture in the first-team for the first six months" - quick repetition of first. Perhaps just "regular fixture in the team for the first six months..."?
 * Move the "against Sheffield United" from the penultimate to the last sentence of the second paragraph. i.e. "...to secure a place in the play-off final at Wembley Stadium. Carlisle was handed the man of the match award for his performance, as Burnley triumphed 1–0 against Sheffield United...''"
 * "defense" --> "defence" (there are a few instances of this).

Rest of the prose

 * Did he become too old for selection for the under-21 side's next fixture? I know it's only journalism, but I ask because this seems to suggest he did quite well in his last game.
 * The use of statistics is pretty sketchy in the style of play section. How many red cards has he received? How tall is he? How many over 20 is "well over 20 goals"?
 * The outside football section looks fine.

Career statistics

 * Given the mention of his questionable discipline, it might be worth adding a similar discipline column to the one in Tommy Smith.
 * I'm neutral on which way you go, but text alignment should be consistent. Either the clubs should be centrally aligned, or the divisions left aligned.

Overall, mainly minor points. I look forward to a second read and hopefully passing this once these issues have been addressed. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the comments. On the under-21 point, I think it had probably had something with David Platt replacing Howard Wilkinson as manager but seeing as though there aren't any sources that say so, I can't put anything definite in the article. Think I've addressed all other points. Thanks, -- Big  Dom  18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Overview

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

A very well balanced article, nicely illustrated, with a few rare examples of bad prose dealt with during the GAN. I'm very happy to pass this. Well done! WFCforLife (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)