Talk:Shaun Goater

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleShaun Goater 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
November 24, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 2, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
July 19, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
July 26, 2015Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Pass Good Article Status[edit]

Well written, covers all the career of the player including minor leagues, doesn't feature any major POV statements, although it is "flattering" to him. It is referenced, but could have more references. As it doesn't have any dangerous statements, I think it's enough to pass for GA. It is very stable, but could feature more images. Weighting everything, I believe this passes the Good Article criteria. Good work.--Serte * Talk * Contribs 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a joke, right? Jwrosenzweig 16:45, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What an ugly mug, on the Goat... but he's doing a good job with the Hogges —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't find this article helpful

Calexico (Talk) 14:00, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) He is a fairly famous sportsman in the UK, I have removed the POV parts and put the msg:stub disclaimer, and added a little bio from my knowledge...others can now add to it...

Quick Question[edit]

Is there any reason why the 1999 Division 2 play off win is not in his honors section? same reason as div 1 runners up isnt i expect? BM20950 (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Please make sure that the article is constantly updated to ensure it remains up to date with his career. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, --Jackyd101 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
Prose is OK. Probably a 7/10 with a few points where it dips lower.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I would like to see a source for the final paragraph on the section on his work in Bermuda, but its not going to lose the article its GA status.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
Personal life section could be substantially improved, see Brian Urlacher for an example of how lay one out.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Personal life[edit]

Hi, this is a warning that the personal life information in this article is much too short. Any biography that is of GA standard must have at least one well organised paragraph describing the persons life outside of their field for which they are famous or otherwise incorporate that information elsewhere in the text. This article does not provide enough information on the person in question and does not give enough context for the incidents and information that is mentioned. For an example of how such a section might look, see Brian Urlacher and for pointers on how to expand and improve the section, see this guide. If this information is not improved then this article would be unlikely to survive a Good Article Reassessment and may well be delisted in the future. Thanks --Jackyd101 (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]