Talk:William Sudell

William Sudell 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
March 12, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
May 23, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 19, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that William Sudell coined the name "Football League"?

Current status: Good article

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal 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
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Football: England Low‑importance

	Association football portal 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.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Adequately sourced
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
WP:NPOV
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
no cleanup banners
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
no edit warring
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
n/a

No problems with quickfail crieria, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
The article is reasonably well written, I made a few a copy-edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS):
The article conforms with the WP:MOS Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
References support the facts as far as it is possible to ascertain. I assume WP:AGF for print sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources):
All sources conform with WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
c (OR):
I find no evidence of WP:OR Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
The article is broad in its scope ....
b (focused):
.... and remains focussed throughout. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Complies with WP:NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
No evidence of edit wars. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
One public domain image is used, correctly tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
A suitable caption is used for the image Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am happy to pas this as a Good article. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Sudell. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091002215806/http://www.pnefc.net/page/History/0%2C%2C10362~1033954%2C00.html to http://www.pnefc.net/page/History/0,,10362~1033954,00.html

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) 00:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]