Talk:Liam Miller/GA

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   There tends to be a lot of "he", try to even out he and Miller in the background section. Also, is the information about Manutdzone describing Miller important to the article? It would be best to add the commentary views from Martin O'Neill and Miller into an incline citation to ref. number 10. - I think the information describing Miller is important to the article as it shows what type of player he is. Alright then, it should stay. I don't really understand about the inline citation part, can you expand on it please? What I meant was remove the commentary views and add them to the ref, example: see here. - I have tried with the inline citation, can you look to make sure I did it correctly. It looks fine, good job. - And User:Xavexgoem has copyedited it.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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):

   Is there a source available for his contract negotiations with Celtic falling through? Also, is there a source available for Miller being suspended in a game against Switzerland? - I have removed the info for the negotiations falling through and I have cited using another previously used source.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   On the Manchester United paragraph, this sentence ----> "This caused an outcry amongst the Celtic support, who perceived Miller to be showing a distinct lack of loyalty to the club, which had supported him through long-term injury." sounds like a POV. That's all me; correct me if I'm wrong, please. In the second paragraph for Manchester United, "fairly promising start" sounds like POV. In the same section, Manchester United should not be linked more than once, per here. In the international section, this sentence ----> "He was bizarrely played in a game", makes no sense; what is it trying to say? If it can be explained, please do so explain it well. - I have used a quote for this, removed the POV and overlinked Manchester United.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who got the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats to everyone. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)