Jump to content

Talk:Chris Hussey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Hussey. 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:

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) 23:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Nehme1499 (talk · contribs) 18:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'll take care of this nomination. This is my first review, hopefully it goes well for both of us :) Nehme1499 18:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you, it's very thorough. I have addressed those points now.--EchetusXe 02:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, I've also cleaned up a couple of details. With the changes made, I'm happy to promote the article :) Nehme1499 13:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Infobox[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • I would add "professional" between English footballer, as it's standard to do so for professional footballers.
  • Change as a defender to as a left-back, in line with the infobox.
  • before earning a contract with AFC Wimbledon. Add "senior" or "professional" before contract, to emphasise that he didn't move to another youth team.
  • He was signed by Championship club Coventry City for an undisclosed fee: no need for "for an undisclosed fee", can be just kept in the main body of the article.
  • I would link the seasons (for e.g. 2010–11 season), to their respective club seasons (2010–11 Coventry City F.C. season). Same goes for the league seasons.
  • The lead is generally good, though I think it's slightly overly-detailed. Try to cut down a bit. For example, He helped Cheltenham to reach the play-offs at the end of the 2019–20 season, though they were eliminated at the semi-final stage. The club went on to win promotion as League Two champions in 2020–21, with Hussey featuring 48 times can by changed to something like He helped Cheltenham to reach the play-offs at the end of the 2019–20 season; they won promotion the following season as League Two champions. I think the two paragraphs should be halved.
  • Also, I don't think specific apps are necessary in the lead, except in the first instance (Despite ongoing injury issues he managed to make 31 appearances). You could generally replace those with "as a starter".

Career[edit]

AFC Wimbledon[edit]
Coventry City[edit]
AFC Wimbledon (2)[edit]
Burton Albion[edit]
Bury[edit]
Sheffield United[edit]
Cheltenham Town[edit]
Port Vale[edit]

International career[edit]

Style of play[edit]

Personal life[edit]

Career statistics[edit]

References[edit]

Images[edit]

  • I know that finding images for footballers can be very difficult, so the lack of them won't impact the review. Still, did you try searching in free-to-use websites, such as flickr?

Assessment[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk23:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by EchetusXe (talk). Self-nominated at 15:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]