# Talk:Michael Rankine

This review is transcluded from Talk:Michael Rankine/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, what do you mean with "spell"? Was he on trial? Like prosecuted or something? I know now what you mean with "featured", but  a re-write might suffice.
Replaced "spell" with "period". Mattythewhite (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Replaced "featured" with "played". Mattythewhite (talk) 19:14, 29 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 Career section, link "2004-05 season" once.
Removed "2004–05" wikilink. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Check.
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: 

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: 

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) 19:05, 29 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) 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Michael Rankine. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/A-ZofDiamonds/0%2C%2C10784~1692389%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/MatchReport/0%2C%2C10784~43446%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/MatchReport/0%2C%2C10784~35711%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304051003/http://www.gateshead-fc.com/5216/gateshead-2-2-fc-halifax-town to http://www.gateshead-fc.com/5216/gateshead-2-2-fc-halifax-town
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)