Talk:Len Boyd/GA1

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

Review forthcoming. Nosleep break my slumber 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I had an internet outage just as I was planning to review this, and right now I'm much too tired to do this kind of work. Review will begin inside of 24 hours. Nosleep break my slumber 07:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got to stop setting deadlines for myself....


 * Quick-fail assessment


 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. - Fine sourcing.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. - No problem here.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags. - Clean.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. - Only recent edits are minor tidying.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. - Tough to get more stable than a bio of a deceased person.

Proceeding with further review, hopefully sooner rather than later.... Nosleep break my slumber 22:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has taken me so long to get back to this.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * I do not understand this sentence at all: He was part of the same West Ham Schools team as Ken Green, later to be a Birmingham team-mate, and as a youth played for Ilford F.C., but the outbreak of the Second World War when Boyd was 15 put paid to an early entry into football as a career.
 * Copyedited
 * he missed five of the last seven games of the season,[23] but was passed fit on the Wednesday before the game. On whose authority was he passed? Doctors for the team, officials..? I think it would help if this were specified a little.
 * Have no access to newspaper source at the moment
 * I'm American, and obviously this article is, as it should be, written in British English. Is Birmingham were soundly beaten standard usage? Using the name of a team as a plural noun? It sounds weird to me.
 * It is indeed. See English plural
 * Neat. Many thanks for the little "British English lesson" here and on the other GA :@) Alex finds herself awake at night  ( Talk ·  Why she won't sleep ) 08:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Style of play" section - make it clearer who the quotes are from, and reword the Alex Govan quote so that it doesn't occur in the middle of the sentence like it does currently. Even just "Teammate Alex Govan said:" would be better, it's very awkward right now.
 * Done some
 * B. MOS compliance:
 * Only thing that sticks out a little to me is the "Honours" section. It's very short, and contains items that are addressed in the article prose. I don't think it's necessary.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research: Sourcing is excellent, structurally and in placement to specific claims.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused: Again, excellent.
 * 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: Perfectly reasonable fair use rationale.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: The image needs some sort of caption, but the file page doesn't afford much information.
 * Added
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: The issues are so small it would be pointless to put the article on hold. I'd like to see them addressed all the same, but I don't think they necessarily even make much of a difference. Good article.  Nosleep  break my slumber 05:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)