Talk:Dick Healey (footballer)

Dick Healey (footballer) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 18, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: England / English non-league Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the English non-league task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

North East England Low‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dick Healey (footballer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 02:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated. MPJ-US 02:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well.

GA Toolbox[edit]

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool

No issues Y

Copyright violations Tool

No issues Y

Disambiguation links

No issues Y

External links

Tool shows connection issues (highlighted in blue) for the following references, can you check up on that please?

6
7
11
12
2

#12 was indeed dead, but now points to an archived version. The others come up blue for me as well, but they are working. Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well Written[edit]

"in 1921, and made" does not need the comma
"first two seasons in to the Football League", think the word "to" is not needed.
I think the term "Keen worker" should be in quotes if that is how the Echo described him.
"Bishop Auckland in a match which would secure them the Northern League title if they won;[17] they did" can I suggest "Bishop Auckland in a match which secured them the Northern League title.[17]"
"Sunderland were agreeable" should be "was" since Sundeland is a club, so singular.
"They also helped Darlington reach", not clear who "they" are
I don't see where " – and Stevens doubled their advantage when Birch failed to deal with the loose ball after a tackle on Healey." is necessary, it's not about Healy as such and turns more into a match report instead of a biography.
"Darlington were invited" should be "was"
"continued in the team", "on the team"
- not in British English Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "International football" section seems out of order, it covers 1910-1913 after all.
- Conventionally, biographical articles do keep club and international football in separate sections rather than dealing with the whole playing career chronologically; see the suggested layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"selected as reserve" should be "selected as a reserve"
- "selected as reserve" is actually fine in British English, but possibly carries an implication of the only reserve; as Healey was one of two, I've changed it Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"made four centuries and forty half-centuries, and took 66 wickets and "over 80" catches." should be "made four centuries, forty half-centuries, took 66 wickets, and "over 80" catches.
- Better still, "he scored 6,586 runs at an average of 28.76, a total that included four centuries and forty half-centuries; he also took 66 wickets and "over 80" catches." Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources/verifiable[edit]

I am not familiar with "find my past". Do you know how it checks out when looking at the Reliable Sources guideline?
- see Wikipedia:FindMyPast. All content used in this article deals with people long dead, so there are no BLP issues, only basic facts are used, so there's no scope for original research, and Mr Healey's life is pretty well documented in public sources, so there aren't any issues of possibile misidentification of persons. Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not familiar with "thespiritofthenorth" is that a Reliable Source?
- possibly not. The website (now dead) was the precursor of a print magazine that never got off the ground, and carried the type of stuff (interviews, historical pieces...) that would have gone into the magazine. Its only use is as a convenience source for Mr Healey playing for Bishops in the 1908/09 season, which is easily verifiable from newspaper sources if you think it necessary? Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same question for "thestatcat.com"?
- Accepted at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sunderland A.F.C. managers

The rest looks good, newspapers etc. Formatting looks okay, date format etc.

Broad in coverage[edit]

It's not just football, but personal life, cricket etc. so I am satisfied this is broad enough Y

Neutral[edit]

I think so, the description of his accomplishments etc. are sourced so that they are not the claims of the article but recaps of what others said. MPJ-US 11:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stable[edit]

Looks to be yes, the history is very short and uneventful Y

Illustrated / Images[edit]

Just the one image, there are some licening issues listed when you go to the image page. N
- I don't think that's a problem. The image is correctly tagged as public domain in the UK, which is fine for GA; for someone 50 years dead, fair use would be good enough. The issue at the image page is generated automatically by the PD-UK tag. As and when someone with the expertise to do so adds the appropriate licensing information to demonstrate its US public domain status, the issue goes away. But proof of PD-US is only needed for featured content or to move the image to Commons. Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Struway2: - My review is complete, not a great deal of issues. I am putting this on hold for 7 days to allow for work to beging on improving the article. If you're working on it during that time I can easily extend that time as well. Being March 18 today I will check in on this no later than March 25 to see if improvements have been done. If you start working and have questions please let me know. MPJ-US 11:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: ... I think I've dealt with everything. I've left comments by some of your points, and anything without a specific comment I've either gone along with your suggestion or tweaked the wording to get round the problem, e.g. "Sunderland were agreeable" → "Sunderland made no objection". Please don't hesitate to call me back if there are any matters arising, and thank you for a comprehensive review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Struway2: - I have checked over your feedback, I am okay with those things. I am also okay with the edits you have made, it was already close to Good Article levels and it's passed now. Great work. MPJ-US 17:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: ... Thanks again. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]