Jump to content

Talk:Scott Neilson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleScott Neilson 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 7, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Career figures

[edit]

I've removed the statistics in the infobox for Neilson's career at Hertford Town and Ware. There are no sources in the page that provide correct league statistics for his career at either club. Until those can be provided, please don't add the statistics again. If you believe the figures are already in the page, please provide further evidence here. 91.106.110.171 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added back the Hertford figures having found and added a source from the club website. 91.106.110.171 (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Scott Neilson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few basic comments below, as I read through the article. I apologize in advance if these are dumb questions.

There's a start, I realize some of these things can likely be explained, rather than actually need a change. Canada Hky (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


All the issues above have been addressed, and I am listing Scott Neilson as a Good Article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Not applicable
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Not applicable
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Congrats on the good article, and thanks for helping out and addressing the review issues quickly.