Requested move 10 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mullins (soccer) → Patrick Mullins – The soccer player is the primary topic. 2340 vs 92; The soccer player has received over 25x as many page views over the last 30 days --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Joeykai (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: They do when there is such a huge difference. The page views over the last 30 days and 2953 for the soccer player and 119 for the jockey; 96% of the page views are going to the soccer player. Do you have any evidence that the soccer player is not the primary topic? Joeykai (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't, see WP:PAGEVIEWS. I suspect this is WP:RECENTism given his recent appearances/goals in MLS, and nothing more. The burden is on you, not me, and you have so far failed to justify your position. GiantSnowman 19:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: This isn't recentism, he has been consistently getting more page views than the other Patrick Mullins for months. His appearances/goals in MLS are what make him the primary topic. And page views are used to determine WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Again, he is getting about 25 times as many page views as the only other Patrick Mullins. That has to be acknowledged. Over the last 90 days, the most page views the jockey has received in a single day is 19 That isn't recentism. I have justified my position. Joeykai (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Patrick Mullins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 05:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'll have a look at this one, will post review as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

Infobox

 Done, both sourced through his Maryland profile.

Early life

 Done, added this into a Personal life section – feel free to check me on that section now.

 Done, added.

College and amateur

 Done, now reads "the Terrapins were eliminated at that round."

 Done, sourced through his Maryland profile.

Baton Rouge Capitals

This is the only part of the review that I'll dissent on. At the time he played in the league, it was the Premier Development League – that didn't change until this year, and therefore Mullins never actually played under the USL League Two banner. Correct me if I'm entirely incorrect here, but hasn't the policy been to leave that redirect for clarity's sake? 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, added.

 Done, sourced the final sentence to an archived page.

 Done, very fair point (especially for an unsourced sentence), removed.

New Orleans Jesters

 Done, failed to find a suitable source so I removed the sentence. Its link to U.S. Open Cup is now in the second sentence in this section. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New England Revolution

 Done, thanks for the check on my journalism background – changed to "starting on the right wing".

 Done, removed link. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, absolutely correct, changed to "he provided an assist on the match-tying goal". 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, linked through his MLS profile. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York City FC

Both the club and the league use NYCFC as a secondary way to refer to the club. Their official nicknames (which all can be found on their page) could easily be substituted here as well, I just went with the one that was used most often by official sources. Let me know if you think any of the other nicknames work better here, however. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just wanted to clarify that it is used as an official nickname or abbreviation. Kosack (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, removed link. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, both linked through his MLS profile. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. United

 Done, removed link. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Crew SC

 Done, removed both links. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, sourced through his MLS profile. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Career statistics

See above in Baton Rouge Capitals section. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Done, added Kyle Schnitzer as the author.

Gotcha, will remember for the future. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links

 Done, removed Maryland and MLS profiles.

Overall, little to really worry about. Try to avoud ending paragraphs without a source. Although the information is mostly simply a listing of statistics, it appears as if unreferenced and paragraphs should always finish with a ref. Placed on hold for now. Kosack (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack:, sorry for the slightly late (by my usual standards) response, I'm currently in the process of moving across the U.S. and might be a bit delayed in replying to these! Thanks for the review, I've begun to address the issues you've pointed out and should finish tomorrow. Thanks for the patience. 21.colinthompson (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@21.colinthompson: No worries, take your time. Kosack (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack:, I've finished most everything else, just two more points still outstanding in this review. Let me know your thoughts on those two. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@21.colinthompson: Nice work. The piping issue isn't a sticking point if you feel its unnecessary. The article meets the relevant GA criteria in my opinion, well written, correctly sourced and has no copyvio concerns. Promoting. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Categories