Talk:Phil Edwards (footballer)/GA1

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

Reviewer: EchetusXe (talk • contribs • count ) 08:52, 16 September 2011 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * clear and concise; if in the future you are planning to take this article to FA status then phrases like 'is a defender, currently playing for' could be improved to meet professional standard. Some sections switch violently between past and present tense, but I am just finding faults here, and it passes as clear and concise.--EchetusXe 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Is he from Bootle (as stated in the infobox) or Kirkby (as listed in the category section)? Soccerbase says Kirkby, so a reference would be needed for the Bootle assertion.--EchetusXe 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Could do with a 'Style of play' section, but I will not demand it.--EchetusXe 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Added caption myself in the copy-edit.--EchetusXe 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * One minor issue to work out within seven days, should that be resolved then the article will pass.--EchetusXe 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * One minor issue to work out within seven days, should that be resolved then the article will pass.--EchetusXe 08:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Article meets criteria. Congratulations! For further improvements try adding a 'style of play' section.--EchetusXe 13:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you for taking the time out to give such a thorough response/evaluation of the article. Sorry about my lack of cooperation regarding pushing this article to GA status &mdash; I made some small changes yesterday, which I then forgot to notify you about. I will add a "style of play" section as soon as I gather my references together. Thanks again. --SBFCEdit (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)