Talk:Darrell Clarke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Darrell Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Darrell Clarke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BigDom (talk · contribs) 11:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this. BigDom (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    (1a) Prose is fine as I suspected it would be when I saw who the author was. A couple of very minor points, I think 'Pool should just be written out as Hartlepool, and club nicknames have sometimes been given single quotes, other times double (I don't mind which is used). Also I think "5–0 demolition" is a little too colloquial and "organization" should use British spelling as in the rest of the article.
    (1b) In the second paragraph of the Hartlepool United section, I would consider adding non-breaking spaces before the en-dashes where they are used as punctuation (see WP:MOSDASH) or replacing them with an easier-to-read punctuation.
    All done now, I was bold and fixed the last couple of remaining issues myself.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    (2a) Italicising of publisher names is inconsistently applied. Ref 91 (Training Ground Guru) is showing a template error.
    (2b) Some sentences don't have citations at the end; the claims about Salisbury's severe financial problems, being popular at Mansfield because he was home-grown, attracting interest from different clubs before joining Hartlepool, and being named captain at Salisbury all definitely need one. What makes the following reliable sources: port-vale.buzzsprout.com, sportnetwork.net, nonleaguebets.co.uk (this appears to be dead anyway), trainingground.guru, inbedwithmaradona.com? There are also a couple of references tagged as permanently dead, can these be replaced?
     Excellent job finding new sources, thanks.
    (2d) Copyvio looks fine, I ran it through the tool and the only things that showed up were the direct quotes, which are suitably referenced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Maybe a touch recent-heavy but overall good. His management section is considerably more detailed than the 18 years of his playing career, which is OK as I think he is more notable as a manager, but sometimes the detail strays into the excessive. For example, I don't think complete lists of recruited players for the 21–22 transfer windows are necessary when this info isn't given for previous seasons - maybe just pick one or two of the key signings. The one-sentence style of play section can probably also be worked into his playing career.
    Looks much better now.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images seem to have correct licensing and both are captioned. The second photo is quite blurry but I think just about OK for GA, don't think it would make it past an FA reviewer though if you wanted to take the article further in future.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This isn't too far away but there are just a few points above to be addressed. I don't think there's anything too serious though so happy to leave this one open for a while so fixes can be made. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you. I believe I have address all of those concerns.--EchetusXe 19:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for looking at those so quickly - I'll have another read through in the morning to check I've not missed anything but it looks better already. BigDom (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a last read through just now and fixed a couple of things myself that caught my eye (was quicker to just do it than to write them here). I'll promote this now. Congrats, BigDom (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by EchetusXe (talk). Self-nominated at 15:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Substantial article, meeting of GA criteria implicates DYK pass. Article was nominated within 7 days of passing GA. QPQ has been completed. Only pings on Earwigs are for long proper titles. Hook is interesting, cited, and short enough for DYK, but the use of "supporters" seems inaccurate; I would use "disgruntled fans" per the article. Morgan695 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great suggestion, I approve of the change. EchetusXe 15:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as approved per Morgan695's review and EchetusXe's consent to the proposed change and listing the approved ALT0a for ease of promotion. (Also changed to dumb quotes per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_characters.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0a: ... that Darrell Clarke led Bristol Rovers to two successive promotions after having to remove 'Clarke Out' posters that disgruntled fans had posted outside of the club's training ground?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Darrell_Clarke&oldid=1200947421"