# Talk:Stuart Elliott (footballer, born 1977)

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: 
I notice that the information in the lead is completely unsourced, and according to this it can be sourced or unsourced. I will, however, not bring that as an issue to this review. In the career section, there's a sentence that reads "but was released by the club at the age of 15." 15 should be written as fifteen. I notice that there tends to be a lot of "he", try to even out he and Elliott in the career section. However shouldn't be at the beginning of a sentence. There's too many "he joined, he signed, he debuted", try to fix that as an example can be seen with David Beckham's article.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

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: 
In paragraph 7, there's a statement that says "He made an immediate impact". To a reader, that may seem to be a POV. It would be best if the sentence be re-written.
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: 
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Replies

 Done 15 changed to fifteen.
However shouldn't be at the start of a sentence - howcome?
A while back when I was in the process of getting an article I was working on for GA, I was informed that however should not start a sentence. I guess its almost the same as adding and in the beginning of a sentence. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done Added more "Elliott"s to the article.
 Done "He made an immediate impact" - removed.
Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments from an independent reader

How come 15 should be fifteen? Per WP:MOSNUM it should actually be 15.
Neither do I agree that however can't come at the start of a sentence? Peanut4 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Very true about the 15 number, if it were describing his jersey number then that would be fine. But, since the article talks about his age, it is more appropriate to add the word, instead of the number. Also, like I said on top, I was told to change however from a start of a sentence. I will not fail the article because of the "however" situation. But, someone would have to revert my edits, as I made the change. Overall, I have gone off and passed the article to GA. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 04:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Stuart Elliott (footballer, born 1977). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111001134846/http://graysathletic.co.uk/news/archives/002909.html to http://graysathletic.co.uk/news/archives/002909.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929032858/http://www.soccerfactsuk.co.uk/s2003/player_details.php?playerid=2301 to http://www.soccerfactsuk.co.uk/s2003/player_details.php?playerid=2301
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929032907/http://www.soccerfactsuk.co.uk/s2005/player_details.php?playerid=10055 to http://www.soccerfactsuk.co.uk/s2005/player_details.php?playerid=10055
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)