Talk:Paul Lake/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cloudz679 (talk · contribs) 06:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I will take this review on. Note that of the four offered footnotes online, The Independent one is broken. I have reservations that other than 2 Daily Mail and 1 findmypast, the only other references are primary sources, particularly, one source, but I will conduct a full review nonetheless and see whether this article may be passed. C679 06:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I am going to have to quick-fail this one as well. Other than Gary James supporting a single sentence about Lake's youth contract, the only section offering secondary sources is the post-retirement one. This is absolutely against criterion 2 of the Good article criteria. Per WP:RS, "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." C679 18:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)