Talk:Scott Neilson

	Scott Neilson has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 7, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sports This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles (Sports) Requested articles (Association football) Requested articles (Association football women) Requested articles (Motor sports) Requested articles (Estonian sportspeople) Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status. Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required. * Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show." Expand : Professional sports (crucial article explaining the salaried undertaking of sports) * Sport industry (currently a sub-stub) Photo : for pages listed in Category:Wikipedia requested images of sports and games and sub-categories. Stubs : work on articles in Category:Sports stubs Update : List of world sports championships Other : Translate the page of sport in each country from corresponding article in other language Wikipedia to English Wikipedia which was marked in red. Categorize: Gather all (major/olympic) sports to be part of this project RfCs: answer requests for comment Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). Football: England / Wales Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Welsh football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

I've removed the statistics in the infobox for Neilson's career at Hertford Town and Ware. There are no sources in the page that provide correct league statistics for his career at either club. Until those can be provided, please don't add the statistics again. If you believe the figures are already in the page, please provide further evidence here. 91.106.110.171 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added back the Hertford figures having found and added a source from the club website. 91.106.110.171 (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scott Neilson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few basic comments below, as I read through the article. I apologize in advance if these are dumb questions.

• Is his brother notable enough for an article on his own? If not, it seems out of place to mention that he played on the same team.
  • Tony Neilson does not meet the various criteria for an article. I think it's worthy to say they played on the same team. It certainly doesn't happen with many brothers. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I adjusted the wording in the paragraph a bit, just to avoid the use of "Scott". Canada Hky (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "non-league" like exhibition games?
  • I've added a link. Basically, it's all divisions below the four fully professional leagues. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In the early life section, one sentence paragraphs should be avoided if possible. Is there anything else about his adult life that could be added, or could this be merged into the preceding paragraph?
  • Merged. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Does "on the books" mean that he was being paid by the team, or does this have another meaning in football (soccer) parlance?
  • It does indeed. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now my next question - is this considered jargon? Canada Hky (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly. I've amended to better prose. Brad78 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "The fee remained undisclosed – although was later revealed to be £20,000 by another manager Martin Ling[32] – but included a 25 per cent sell-on fee." That sentence is confusing. Does this "The fee was undisclosed at the time of the bid, but opposing manager Martin Ling later revealed it to be £20,000, including a 25 percent sell-on fee." keep the same meaning? Also, what is a sell-on fee?
  • I've changed the text. Hopefully it makes better sense. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "League Two-side" - is that hyphen needed?
  • Indeed not. Removed. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also removed one where it said "Conference-side" - I hope that was a similar situation.Canada Hky (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. It was the same. Brad78 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In the playing style section - "improve his crossing" - can that be clarified at all?
  • Not really. The source just says he was told to "work on [my] crosses". I've slightly reworded to try and improve the phrase. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a soccer neophyte - is that like kicking, or positioning? Or is it just a generally ambiguous statement? Canada Hky (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kicking. I've found and added a link, if you think that helps. Brad78 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference #1 has no publisher information.
  • Added. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a start, I realize some of these things can likely be explained, rather than actually need a change. Canada Hky (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks very much for taking time to review this. I've replied to all the points above. If there's anything else I can help with, let me know. Brad78 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a couple more minor issues that arose. Everything else has been crossed out as it was addressed or explained. Canada Hky (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

All the issues above have been addressed, and I am listing Scott Neilson as a Good Article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Not applicable

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Not applicable

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Congrats on the good article, and thanks for helping out and addressing the review issues quickly.