Talk:Mark Aizlewood/GA1

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 21:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Reading now. Courcelles (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ”Five pound per week”. Pounds should be plural, I think. - Done
 * ”clubs player of the year”. Club's, I would think. - Done
 * ”Leeds own fans ”. Again, I would have written Leeds', with apostrophe. - Done
 * In the same place, can you explain why the v sign was such an issue? - Done
 * His time at Bradford City and Bristol City probably deserve more than one sentence.
 * Again, going from 1994 to retirement six years later could be expanded beyond two sentences.
 * ”club's 1–0 FA Cup victory over Premier League side Manchester City”. What round of the FA Cup is this in? - Done
 * ” a role wjoch ” - Done
 * ”The club made an strong start to the season and Rush was linked to the vacant Wales job but a difficult period in the second half of the season, winning just 2 out of 10 matches, saw the club fall down the table and pressure grew on Rush and his management team.”. Sources for all that? - Done
 * ”his first job in management”. Wasn’t his spell as an assistant manager his first job in management? - Done
 * ”He also developed a gambling addiction and has admitted to losing up to £30,000 in a single day.”. Source? - Done
 * ”thea fraud due toto a ” - Done
 * The fraud section is serious minefield, so much I’d expect an explicit source after every claim under BLP policy.
 * Has he begun serving his sentence yet?

Courcelles (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, I've made a quick start on these. Kosack (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've expanded his Bradford and Bristol career as much as I can but I really don't have any sources to expand on this further. His Welsh Premier League playing career is as good as it's going to get as coverage of the league in its early days is basically non-existent. I thought I better bring this up before going any further if it's going to be an issue. Let me know if it's worth carrying on with the review, thanks. Kosack (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can understand that. Please proceed, though it's worth noting you'd get a lot of scrutiny at FAC over this, at GAN I'm willing to accept it. Courcelles (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've finished off all of the other points raised above. I've added more references to the fraud section to ensure it's heavily sourced. Kosack (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good, promoting. Courcelles (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)