Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jamie Stuart/1

Jamie Stuart edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. Deadlinks were fixed and no further issues were specifically noted. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this article meets the criteria for GA anymore. It lacks infomation fot the length of time he has been playing football and it also lacks references.–LiamTaylor– 13:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a little more specific? I can't see any lack of references and the article clearly illustrates his playing history. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited the original nominator to comment here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More in the early stage of his career, 46+ appearences for Millwall is covered by 3 lines and only a couple of refs.–LiamTaylor– 16:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found much on-line about his spell at Millwall. Sometimes the coverage just isn' there. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are more references than I was expecting and nothing wrong with the article. I googled for info on his Millwall career, there just isn't much. Szzuk (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well as Iv'e been told before, sometimes there just isn't enough coverage out there to make GA (sometimes it just isn't possible, like I found out trying to get Matty Barlow to GA).Liam Taylor 17:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Mostly because of the numerous dead links, but there is also a lack of breadth. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dead links are sorted. One remains, but I found another source that backs up the statement so it could easily be removed if it still presents a problem. It should be noted that dead links are not a reason for denying GA status anymore, but most can be fixed relatively easily. The breadth seems fine to me for a good article on a football player. AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that the WP:Good article criteria do not require functional URLs in citations. Any dead ref repair should be done in accordance with WP:DEADREF, which does not recommend simply removing them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the wayback machine for most, found a couple of replacement ones or duplicated refs hosted at other websites and only removed the ones that had another ref already supporting the claim,[1] which is in accordance with WP:DEADREF. BTW I think this article should be kept as no one has been able to find the information that is claimed to be missing. Also WP:GACN sugggests that comprehensive coverage is not required, as long as the major aspects are "addressed". AIRcorn (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to close this but the deadlinks actually have not been addressed; I checked and there are multiple ones. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]