Talk:Stuart McCall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stuart McCall article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Stuart McCall has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 21, 2008 Good article nominee Listed March 29, 2008 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Good article

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

	Association football Portal The article on Stuart McCall is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the England task force.

To-do list for Stuart McCall:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Image(s) Expand: Everton, Rangers

[edit] Autobiography

The section where it is claimed that McCall was outspoken about City’s failure to strengthen the side to secure promotion in 1987-88 says 'citation needed'. The only source I am aware of is the book The Real McCall, penned by McCall with the aid of a ghost writer. jimbo 07:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Real McCall - details from Amazon.

Publisher: Mainstream Publishing (25 Jun 1998) Language English ISBN-10: 1840180781 ISBN-13: 978-1840180787 by Alan Nixon (Author), Stuart McCall (Author)

jimbo 10:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"When promotion was missed by one point on the last day of the season, he left the club" - technically, this is incorrect. McCall played two further games (and scored one further goal) for the club in the play-offs against Middlesbrough. Having lost 3-2 on aggregate, Bradford stayed in Division Two and McCall then left for Everton. jimbo 10:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I've looked this article over, and I'm putting it on hold. I think, unfortunately, it needs quite a lot of work for it to qualify as a Good Article. Because my review is rather long, check here for the review. Noble Story (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've addressed a lot of those points. I'll add some more comments on your Sandbox. Ah, just seen the Sandbox has grown. I'll get on with the rest of them!! Peanut4 (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a second review to the above page. Noble Story (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is almost, almost there. Check my sandbox for the third and probably final review. Noble Story (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of Stuart McCall

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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:

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

   The article does not have images, but I'm fine with that, as it's not required for GA status.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, your hard work has paid off. The article is now officially a Good Article. I hope you have success taking it to an even higher level.

Noble Story (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)