Talk:Darrell Clarke/GA1

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

Reviewer: BigDom (talk · contribs) 11:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this. BigDom (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * (1a) Prose is fine as I suspected it would be when I saw who the author was. A couple of very minor points, I think 'Pool should just be written out as Hartlepool, and club nicknames have sometimes been given single quotes, other times double (I don't mind which is used). Also I think "5–0 demolition" is a little too colloquial and "organization" should use British spelling as in the rest of the article. (1b) In the second paragraph of the Hartlepool United section, I would consider adding non-breaking spaces before the en-dashes where they are used as punctuation (see WP:MOSDASH) or replacing them with an easier-to-read punctuation. All done now, I was bold and fixed the last couple of remaining issues myself.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * (2a) Italicising of publisher names is inconsistently applied. Ref 91 (Training Ground Guru) is showing a template error. (2b) Some sentences don't have citations at the end; the claims about Salisbury's severe financial problems, being popular at Mansfield because he was home-grown, attracting interest from different clubs before joining Hartlepool, and being named captain at Salisbury all definitely need one. What makes the following reliable sources: port-vale.buzzsprout.com, sportnetwork.net, nonleaguebets.co.uk (this appears to be dead anyway), trainingground.guru, inbedwithmaradona.com? There are also a couple of references tagged as permanently dead, can these be replaced?  Excellent job finding new sources, thanks. (2d) Copyvio looks fine, I ran it through the tool and the only things that showed up were the direct quotes, which are suitably referenced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Maybe a touch recent-heavy but overall good. His management section is considerably more detailed than the 18 years of his playing career, which is OK as I think he is more notable as a manager, but sometimes the detail strays into the excessive. For example, I don't think complete lists of recruited players for the 21–22 transfer windows are necessary when this info isn't given for previous seasons - maybe just pick one or two of the key signings. The one-sentence style of play section can probably also be worked into his playing career. Looks much better now.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images seem to have correct licensing and both are captioned. The second photo is quite blurry but I think just about OK for GA, don't think it would make it past an FA reviewer though if you wanted to take the article further in future.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This isn't too far away but there are just a few points above to be addressed. I don't think there's anything too serious though so happy to leave this one open for a while so fixes can be made. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thank you. I believe I have address all of those concerns.--EchetusXe 19:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for looking at those so quickly - I'll have another read through in the morning to check I've not missed anything but it looks better already. BigDom (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I had a last read through just now and fixed a couple of things myself that caught my eye (was quicker to just do it than to write them here). I'll promote this now. Congrats, BigDom (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for looking at those so quickly - I'll have another read through in the morning to check I've not missed anything but it looks better already. BigDom (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I had a last read through just now and fixed a couple of things myself that caught my eye (was quicker to just do it than to write them here). I'll promote this now. Congrats, BigDom (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)