Talk:Danny Collins (footballer)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid this one is a fail. To be honest, the article cannot currently be salvaged up to GA level, but an additional concern is that the nominator is not a major contributor to the article. As of this review, Royroydeb has only 7 edits to the article. In itself, that is not a problem, but there are too many issues in the article, in addition to this problem, to make me believe that the article could reach the standard within seven days. It is better to improve it out of the GA spotlight and then renominate once the major problems have been ironed out. The main problem is with referencing, but there are other problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

Early career:

• The only information referenced is that of his cricket career, and that he played for Minor Counties Wales in two games. Nothing else in the section has a reference. At all.

Chester City:

• Ref 4 simply goes to a list of current matches. The rest of the paragraph is unreferenced.

Sunderland:

• The first two sentences are referenced adequately (and reveal a little more information).
• The rest of the first paragraph has one reference, which does not support the sentence it follows. Nothing else in the section is referenced, and certainly not supported by ref 7.
• More than half of the second paragraph is about one game, and does not really concern Collins except that he was denied a goal. This is unbalanced and WP:UNDUE to focus on one game. Nothing else in that paragraph is referenced, and is not supported by ref 8.
• We also use italics for the quote, which is not recommended by the MoS.
• The third paragraph has one ref, which supports his signing a new contract, but nothing else in that paragraph.
• I have stopped checking references at this point.

Prose

• Clumsy phrasing: "keeping him at the club until at least the end of the 2010–11 season", "However he again struggled", "with Higginbotham and Marc Wilson being preferred"...
• Run on sentence, incorrectly punctuated: "He ended the 2004–05 season with another championship medal and full Welsh caps to his name, he was initially used as a backup player to defenders Gary Breen, Steven Caldwell and George McCartney, in his first season at the club, but still managed to make 14 appearances"
• POV writing: "It was after a successful spell on loan at Vauxhall Motors that his career started to take off, having been converted from an unconvincing forward into a composed central defender" (We can't say that he was successful, or unconvincing, as that is an opinion. It needs attributing to a reliable source), "continued to impress"...
• Jargon: "amassing just 15 points", "first team regular", "dropped back to the bench"
• Writing in the present tense about events in the past: "Collins begun the 2010–11 season in good form and has stated that he needs to keep performing well if he is to hold his left back position."

General points

• Do we have any details on his early life? We don't even have a birthplace except in the infobox. What about in the article?
• Any other details: I don't know if this is a reliable source, but it may be worth checking out.
• He can also play at centre half, as mentioned here. This is not mentioned.
• We really could do with some details of how he plays, what critics have said, good/poor seasons, notable performances. Perhaps not all of this exists, but a quick google search and a trawl of the sources presented here reveals that at least some of this could be added.
• There is very little detail about what he did in each season. We have a lot of detail about one game, but most of the time there is simply a list of how many appearances he made in each season. Much more is needed.
• The link checker tool at the top of this page reveals a few redirects and dead links. These need to be sorted.

Several of these points would be enough in themselves to fail the article. However, these are only samples, and there are many similar instances. Furthermore, this is only from the first part of the article, and I have not fully reviewed the second half. This leaves me little choice. I don't think this article was even close to being ready for a GA nomination. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2013 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Problems with prose, as outlined above. Also, I'm not sure that the MoS is being followed, and there are a couple of grammatical errors such as the run-sentence.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are some references, and those given seem reliable, but many sections or large parts of sections are not referenced, or not supported by the references given. This means that we basically have OR here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There are many details missing from his life and career which are easy enough to find from a cursory search.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See above examples of POV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   One image, which is fine.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)