Joe Colbeck 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 November 9, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Sports and Games 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 This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). Football: England Low‑importance 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. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance). Bradford Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bradford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bradford 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.BradfordWikipedia:WikiProject BradfordTemplate:WikiProject BradfordBradford articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Yorkshire Low‑importance Joe Colbeck is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Joe Colbeck be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Nice work on this one, no real problems.[reply]

• "...Colbeck soon also left and joined Hereford United." Maybe "COlbeck also left soon after and joined Hereford United."
• Maybe say who the Bantams are?
• Is it worth saying which division the clubs were in? Most people won't know unless they are fans.
• "...disappointed to see Colbeck leave saying, "Joe was fantastic for us. He scored a couple of goals and had a real effect on us so we're sorry to see him go."": Does it need to say "disappointed to see Colbeck leaving" as the quote covers this?
• I wouldn't start the Oldham section with "however".
• "give his team some width": Ok for GA, but if you were taking it further, maybe explain what this is for the casual reader.
• "Ahead of the 2007–08 season, Colbeck, who had yet to score before then, admitted he needed to score more goals." Is this necessary? It's a little clunky and would probably be better to say he did not score much?
• It says he was a right winger in the lead and playing style section; is it worth putting it in to his career section? Not sure, just wondering.

• I'm sure it would be there if you had it, but... Any more on his personal life, family, etc. If not, I'd still pass, but I know some people get very uptight if there is no personal info...
• Any images? I hate GAs with no images... :)
• Ref 2 and 6 are deadlinks. There look to be a few weird redirects but these aren't a problem.
• Refs seem fine and article is well sourced: looked at a selection and they are fine.

Just minor points. A really good piece of work, covers his career nicely without going into too much dull stats. Style section is really thorough too. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of the points above or changed the wording. The only one I haven't done is the "disappointed" bit. At the moment, I like the way it flows - I'll have another look, but can you suggest any way to reword it.

Apart from his school, there's not much I can find out about his personal life. I know his dad died two years ago, but other than non-reliable sources and/or Facebook, there's no sources available to add any further text at this moment in time.

I can't find any free images of Colbeck and the only images I'd be able to add would be non-specific ones for the sake of adding images. I agree on your point though ;-).

Got the two deadlinks - the T&A keeps changing the web addresses for loads of old stories; very infuriating. I suspect the weird redirects are for similar reasons.

Thanks very much for another review. Brad78 (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All fine now and the "disappointed" part isn't a big deal, so I'll pass it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]