Talk:Tom Hawkins (footballer, born 1988)/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV

this article is seriously biased, refering to him as a "the latest young star" and that he dominated the NAB Under 18s National Championship, im not saying he didnt, but seriously sources and stats should be provided before we state such things. --Dan027 08:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Left School

I have just updated the bit about early life and career seeing as he has left school.Squall1991 06:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life

"He is pre - engaged to his childhood sweetheart Emma Clapham, they meet at boarding school."

Firstly, what does pre-engaged even mean? And where's the source? Hoever06 06:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

i have removed this now. --Dan027 00:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused): - need a person who has more knowledge of footballers to double check this point. I went and read the majority of citations listed, and the wikipedia article seems to go above and beyond combining the information from all sources neatly, accurately and concisely

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   - The talk page seems to present an article with no controversy - however again need a person who has more knowledge of footballers to double check this point.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Once the minor semi automatic peer review options (point One MoS) are addressed and a person knowledgeable about footballers expounds upon point 3 - this article is a good article IMHO. Did you place this article in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports for a peer review or assessment for point 3?SriMesh | talk 07:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-edits

I've touched up (or rather, touched-down) the lead of the article, as per the above suggestion. And no, I didn't place the article under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports. I'm assuming I should...

Cheers Boomtish 08:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-corrections

I went in and revised the above ratings, as the MoS points were addressed, and I informed myself regarding point 3, and it appears to pass this aspect as well.

Another aspect - nothing that would pass or fail just add to the article - Could you click on the link What links here and see if a section named See also can be made identifying related internal wiki links that are pertinent to the article - there are quite a few wiki articles that refer to Tom Hawkins in their articles.SriMesh | talk 19:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Nominated by...Boomtish 02:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC) See above article history - milestone template. The Article achieved Good Article status as per the following review.... so this good article nomination template has been removed as per good article review instructions.SriMesh | talk 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi Automatic Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.^[?]
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SriMesh | talk 05:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Review

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review the article I put up for nomination.

Having gone over the points semi-automated peer review:

- I don't believe there is an issue with the lead. It is both concise, well-referenced, and provides an adequate summary of the article in total.

- I'm not sure what issue (if there is one with the links) is apparent, but please do kindly point out any suggestions.

- No available images of use as of now.

Hope to hear from you soon. Boomtish 06:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom Hawkins

- Lead covers many of the following lead points, just needs a bit of tweaking and copyediting into at the most 2 paragraphs.

• The biography is 5,650 characters (No spaces) and 6,726 characters as it stands today. According to WP:Lead articles < 15,000 characters should be 1-2 paragraphs.
  • 1. Context - see Template:Biography - covered in article BTW very well
  • 2. Characterization - appearance, age, gender, educational level, vocation or occupation, financial status, marital status, social status, cultural background, hobbies, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ambitions, motivations, personality, what the biography refers to as used in the given context.
  • 3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background.
  • 4. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate.
  • 5. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism. Need to compare to other footballers, if appropriate.
    • • If the article was to become a feature article or an article chosen for a portal - only the lead would be used - does it induce the reader to desire to know what the article is about and seek further information?

- I'm not sure what issue (if there is one with the links) is apparent, but please do kindly point out any suggestions. This is an automatic javascript program that looks at format issues according to wiki guidelines on the referenced pages. You have an amazing amount of citations compared to a number of articles I have seen. This auto peer reviewer sees that perhaps the same reference is used in close proximity to itself as per the wiki referenced pages... Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT

- No available images of use as of now. -Fair enough - these are hard to come by sometimes.

On the whole I thought your article was very well done. I have benefited myself from this semi automatic javascript peer reviewer it is so easy to install the program and use it on pages to promote their quality. Good luck in all your endeavours. Kind Regards Julia SriMesh | talk 06:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)