Good articleHartlepool United F.C. 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
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
February 21, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hartlepool United F.C.. 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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

Proposing merging History of Hartlepool United F.C. into this article because:

Abcmaxx (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. I'll be reviewing this article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022 --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Main issues

Other issues

Overall

With the huge amount of uncited paragraphs in the history section alone, I will have to quickfail this nomination per WP:GAFAIL as "it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". Specifically, this article is a long way from passing Criteria #2 Verifiable with no original research. Apart from the huge amount of uncited paragraphs, I've found parts that are original research (Cup Honours, Club Records, possibly Player & Team Records). If the verification issues were addressed, especially the uncited content in the history section, this article would be much improved and closer to passing the verification criteria for GAN. While I have not performed an in-depth review, I am very concerned of the amount of uncited content that is currently in this article. I hope you are encouraged to work through the verification issues to help improve this article. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria to see which criteria GAN reviewers are looking for in an article. You are always free to take a look through this article and address any other issues per the GAN criteria before resubmitting this article. Thank you for submitting this article to GAN :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

league position 2021-22 in infobox[edit]

This should be 17th out of 24th as there 24 teams in league two that season Katherine Northey (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new History of Hartlepool United F.C. article[edit]

I see that the previous History of Hartlepool United F.C. article was deleted in 2020 and merged into this one. However, the current history section on this main article is possibly overly-detailed for a club article (mostly my fault). I would suggest moving the current history section of the main article onto a new 'History of Hartlepool United F.C.' article. I would also suggest replacing the current Hartlepool United F.C.'s history section with the history section from the List of Hartlepool United F.C. seasons as it seems to cover the main points better in a more condensed fashion. What do other people think? Michaeldble (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a perspective on this? Michaeldble (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Michaeldble - It seems that there aren't any comments. In the absence of any comments, I am willing to accept the draft, if we understand that anyone who objects to the split can nominate the history article for deletion, and then let a rough consensus decide whether to merge the history back into the parent article or let the history stand, with the AFD indicating that a decision was made to keep the history. Are you ready for me to accept the draft, and see whether anyone nominates it for deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon Yes I'm fine with that, thanks Michaeldble (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon If you pass the new draft, should I replace this article's history section with my shorter draft or leave it for now? Michaeldble (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Michaeldble - After I accept the new draft, you can trim the history section in the main article, and will be encouraged to do so. But please wait for me to recheck the draft and then accept it before doing anything. Robert McClenon (talk)

History Split

I have accepted the history article. If anyone disagrees, please nominate the history article for deletion or merger, rather than unilaterally reverting the split. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Err...possibly a little premature as the main article is only 20kb readable prose but we'll see how we go in the GA review. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hartlepool United F.C./GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok taking a look now...

Not bad overall - shouldn't need too much work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking a look @Casliber.
  • Looking at some of the FAs for club articles, they seem to vary a bit. This article's opening para has two sentences whereas features articles such as Ipswich Town have one, York City two and Gillingham three. I could extend it further if it is important though.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Not particularly sure what this was referring to myself so I've removed it
  • I'll extend the Brian Clough part and maybe add something about McGovern/Allon/Houchen.
  • I've merged it into one para. I'll add a section on the strip too at some point today
Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Casliber, I think I've implemented most of your feedback now. I've extended the colours and crest section and added a bit about John McGovern. The only bit I haven't done yet is the first para of the lead but I wanted to get your thoughts on that first. Please let me know what you think. Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I'm not thrilled by a small 2-sentence sub-paragraph at top but concede it's been accepted on football FAs so will not make a big deal about it. I was unaware of the Michael Maidens story -worth a few sentences, including the goal of the season and death. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've extended the Michael Maidens section just now. Michaeldble (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: - right, I think we're there. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! @Casliber Thank you very much for your help Michaeldble (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories