Talk:George Tweedy

Possible Mistake?

Upon revision of this article, it produces ambiguity as to which Willington Tweedy is from. It states he was both born in Willington, County Durham - a market town principally known for it's coal, and Willington on Tyneside, which is Willington Quay - a mere suburb of Newcastle Upon Tyne close to Wallsend.

I assume the fact he played for Willington F.C (Durham) and Crook Town means he was born in the former?

This website [1] says he was born in County Durham but I don't know how reliable they are? Random Passer-by 17:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

In reviewing the article in accordance to the Good Article Criteria, I have decided to decline the article's GA nomination at this time because of concerns mentioned below. For style comparisons for an article in this subject area, I referenced the FA quality soccer article of Denis Law and the GA quality article of David Beckham.
1. It is well written. - Weak Pass

• While there is no glaring violation of WP:MOS, there are some awkard sentence constructions (especially in the Grimsby Town section) that I would recommend looking at.
• The article makes excellent use of wiki-links on soccer related terms so that even a Yank can follow and understand the article.
• While not a violation of MOS, per se, I do think the editors of this article should consider utilizing the more formal last name address in the article versus the first name "George". The informal use seems to indicate that Wikipedia is on a first name basis with it's subject and is less encyclopedic in tone.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass

• The article is well referenced with reliable sources and in-line citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs improvement

• A line that immediately caught my eye was " a World War II interrupted career" but yet no mention of what Tweedy did during the war. At the very least it's worth a few lines like in the Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio articles.
• The article is also missing a more detailed look at career stats (outside of the brief summary mention in the info box). A year by year table style breakdown would be nice. As a reader, I am curious as to what years were his peaks and valleys and a table would help with that.
• I would also like to see the England section more fleshed out. It is mentioned that Tweedy had a difficult time acquiring caps because of the play of fellow goalkeepers. What happened in 1936 that allowed him to finally get one?
• Another question that popped into my mind while reading was in regards to the "one club player". The adjoining wiki-article mentioned that was a rare thing which made me wonder if there was any sources with information on why Tweedy remained a one club player. (Did he like the area and accepted less money? Did the owners and fan make sure that he stayed?, etc)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

• The article does a good job of maintaining an NPOV tone with its subject.

5. It is stable - Pass

• The article is relatively young with a short article history.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

• Though is there a way to move the picture up to the top of the info box?

I want to thank the article's editors for their hard work and dedication in getting the article up to this point. The article was an enjoyable read and was a nice introduction to man with an undoubtedly interesting life and career. I think that once more details about that life and career are fleshed out that this article will certainly be on a good footing for GA status. I encourage the editors to work towards those improvements and consider resubmitting for GA consideration. If you have questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As none of these things have been addressed (and I think the former reviewer was kinder than I would have been regarding the prose), I'm failing this GA. Consider a peer review and some expansion before renomination. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone asked me to expand a bit on this. I failed it because it looks like it was renominated without dealing with these things. I also didn't put it on hold because there didn't seem to be a reason to - it hadn't largely dealt with these issues in the month before. I don't know if this is really all that comprehensive, and the prose is still somewhat messy. If you relist it because you disagree, I won't touch the renom again, but I'd suggest seeing if you can get a few extra eyes to look at this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)