Talk:Russell Howarth

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 14:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some serious copy-editing throughout is needed. Some examples:

   Howarth started his career with the youth system of hometown club York City "in" would better than "with"

   His debut for the first team came at the age of 17, playing in the first six games of the 1999–2000 season, and signed a professional contract with the club in 1999. mixture of tenses.

   Despite playing in goal, in one season while playing as a left-sided midfielder he managed to score 29 goals. Clumsy - could be better phrased.

   joining in 1996 on schoolboy forms, "terms" would better than "forms"

   He revealed he did not want to play in the game in the fear of an injury ending his proposed transfer to Wolves. "in the fear of" is poor grammar.

   There is a tendency to WP:OVERLINK, some unnecessary capitalization, the stray sentence in the Lead should be consolidated. When copy-edited thoroughly this has the potential to be a good article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is well referenced to reliable sources, spot-checks show that statements are supported by the cites, no evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers major aspects, focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images used.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is near GA quality, but at present is let down by poor prose. On hold for seven days for a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

   Well no action has been taken so this fails its GA nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russell Howarth/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BigDom 17:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   When I first reviewed the article, the prose was not up to GA standards but after thorough copyediting from myself, User:Mattythewhite and User:Brad78 I think it is good enough now. The article doesn't contain jargon or unencyclopaedic terms as sports articles tend to, which is good. The lead section summarises the article well, taking the main points from each section, and the layout of the article is generally good. Lists and fiction are not applicable here.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A very well-referenced article, with well over 100 cites. Every claim likely to be challenged is sourced, which is always nice to see. No problems at all with the quality of references; club websites, newspapers and books are all reliable sources. Definitely free of original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All the major (and minor) points of Howarth's football career are covered in the article. I think there is a tendency to go into slightly too much detail in parts, but not so much as to detract from the quality. It appears as though his time at York is covered in more detail than his spells at Tranmere and Bradford, but this is natural given the sources available to the author.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I know that the main author of the article is a York City fan so it is good to see that any possible bias has been avoided.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems here; as far as I can see there hasn't been even a hint of an edit war in the four and a half years since the article was created.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   While it would have been nice to have a picture of Howarth to illustrate the article, I know as well as anyone how difficult it can be to find suitably-licensed images of footballers. Anyway, it is not essential for a GA to contain images so it isn't really an issue.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm happy that following the work done on the article since the start of this GA review has raised the article to Good Article standard. Going to pass this one.

The article desperately needs a thorough copy-edit. I've done a couple of paragraphs myself but I'll leave it on hold for seven days for someone else to do the rest. BigDom 18:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I would've appreciated being dropped a line saying the article had been reviewed, rather than finding out on my own accord a day later. Anyway, I'll have another go at copy-editing soon, but do you think it would be wise for me to make an appeal for a fresh pair of eyes to take a look at it? Mattythewhite (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of message, left a note on your TP. BigDom 11:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Just given it a copyedit, whether it's quite enough I don't know. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Much better, I'll just have a quick look through the article now to see if you've missed anything. BigDom 09:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we got there in the end, and I'm happy to pass this one now. Congrats, BigDom 19:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the review! Mattythewhite (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)