# Talk:Darius Charles

This review is transcluded from Talk:Darius Charles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the Career section, "He went on to feature as a first half substitute in a 3–3 draw with Bradford City on 2 January 2006" and "He featured for Brentford on five further occasions", I think I know what you mean with "featured", but maybe a re-write might suffice.
Fixed. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Check.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the lead, it would be best to link "Ebbsfleet United" once. In the Career section, you might want to link "striker", I mean, I know what it means, but how 'bout your reader.
Removed "Ebbsfleet United" wikilink. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Added "striker" wikilink. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Check on both.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 
Is SoccerFactsUK a reliable source?
Their homepage gives the impression it is run by a single administrator. Does this have any bearing on its reliability? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it seems that its there for facts, sourceful facts. I wouldn't hold it against you. But, if taken to FAC, I think the source might come up.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Is no image available?
Not that I've seen. I've searched on Flickr and there weren't any decent ones available. If he'd have signed for York I'd have been able to take a photo myself. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Its fine, I was just wondering.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to Mattythewhite who got the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)