Talk:Jack Charlton/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Will read and review this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For starters, I wouldn't have the club nicknames in inverted commas - never saw that in football books and is jarring now.


 * I saw the comment on the other GAN about concern of overreliance on one source - however given it is about a footballer and not (say) politician, I am not going to quickfail, but I do think it is worth checking some other books to see if they have differing viewpoints - looking at google books, there is some stuff to wade through. I see this shows a side which might be a bit controversial. Others like this and this ( this is good in context of him coaching the Irish team) would be good to add as different non-primary sources.


 * Also this for some amusing anecdotes and bluntness.


 * And this and this


 * I also have a Greatest Players book that has him in that I will dig up - I think it would be good to at least sprinkle some of the above through this. But I think it looks pretty good and reads well overall, so GA should be readily achievable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a few sentences referenced by a couple of those sources. The articles already states "Charlton is a keen amateur fisherman and also takes part in field sport" with a link to Country sport. I don't think that hunting and shooting animals is very cool but it isn't what he is known for, he doesn't seem to have gotten into trouble with the law for it, and it doesn't seem to have had much coverage in the media. He talks in his autobiography of numerous controversies that are mentioned here, such as Leeds rough play, being difficult to manage in his early years and his insistence on taking charge of the defence as a player, criticism that he got non-Irish players to play for Ireland, not talking to his brother for years. There are a lot of other sources on show and I don't see much point in changing some references to other books just for the same of it. Though that is what I did when I was at university when writing essays to make it seem like I had read lots of sources. Feel free to sprinkle other sources in if you believe it improves the article.--EchetusXe 16:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good points - was musing on it as I had seen the other GAN In any case, material does not seem to disagree with other information out there from what I have read (though some different anecdotes pop up). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - re prose, found myself zoning out and just reading it, which is a good sign that there are no clangers left prose-wise. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)