Talk:Joshua King (footballer, born 1992)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead is a little too short, see WP:LEAD for the number of paras expected of an article of this length and pay heed to the idea of it summarising the whole article. (For instance, you could also include a summary of his international career...) Done
• "in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, " not really needed, just Oslo is fine. Done
• "Spokeo" is not considered a reliable source. Done
  • I've removed all instances of that ref, but the reference User:Royroydeb replaced it with does not cite the facts that the Spokeo ref did. We now have an issue with unsourced content. – PeeJay 17:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Not any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "age of 6" -> six (per MOSNUM) and then replace 14 with fourteen, for more pleasant reading prose. Done
• Is ref 7 needed at all, there are already three other refs citing the Milk Cup win. Done
  • Ref 7 wasn't there to cite the Milk Cup win, it was there in conjunction with the other three to cite his four goals in the competition. – PeeJay 17:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "He began the following season by scoring four goals in four matches as the Manchester United Under-17s won the 2008 Milk Cup" implies the Cup was won in the first four matches of the season. Done
  • It was (well, it was actually the first five games of the season, but I don't know if King played in the first game). – PeeJay 17:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Joshua was an unused..." surnames please. Done
• "Two games after his comeback, he scored two..." new para so re-introduce the subject, i.e. "Two games after his comeback, King scored two..." Done
• "two goals in" could just tighten this to "twice in". Done
• "His first goal for..." -> "King's first goal..." Done
• Paul Hayes is overlinked. Done
• "72nd-minute" vs "86th minute" consistency in hyphens please. Done
• "the 0–1 away" in BritEng we'd just say "the 1–0 away" as we'd understand that the away bit would mean the away team won. Done
• Quote box, "Gary Bowyer on King[37]" say who Gary Bowyer is. Done
• "scored a goal eight minutes later, but the goal was disallowed" avoid repeating goal, so "scored eight minutes later, but the goal was disallowed" or "scored a goal eight minutes later, but it was disallowed". Done
• "and created a penalty " we'd normally say "won" a penalty. Done
• "scored a last goal in" presumably you mean "the" last goal. Done
• Avoid using hash to represent "number" per WP:HASH. Done

But that is the rule as per as MOS in WP:FOOTY. RRD13 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Statistics could use being updated, they're over a month old now. Done

He hasnt played since then.RRD13 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 18 and 19 are the same, use ref name to re-use the ref. Done
• You don't need Category:Norwegian footballers because you already have Category:Norway international footballers. Done

Not bad, very well referenced in fact, so I'll put it on hold for a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Made a few final tweaks, but happy with this now to promote to GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy this article made it to GA, especially after I put so much effort into it before User:Royroydeb's recent contributions, but I can't help feeling it should have been left on hold a little longer. I don't believe your concerns have been properly addressed, TRM, and I am currently attempting to sort out a few issues I've found. – PeeJay 17:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good news, I fixed a few of the fixes, a shame I missed others. It's the nature of GA that one assumes the nominator will fix the issues, not to suddenly find one or two other editors arriving to give their opinion at the last moment, when, of course, the fixes could have been made over the last six months. Never mind. If my reviews are inadequate and not needed, that's fine, I'll channel my energy elsewhere. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean for you to take my comments as a personal insult. "Inadequate" is a matter of personal opinion, and I'll keep mine to myself, but as you well know, we always need more editors to do GA reviews, so please don't give up on my account. We're none of us perfect, after all. – PeeJay 18:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No it's fine, and somewhat symptomatic of Wikipedia. I pick a GAN which has been languishing for something like six months and work hard to review it, and then get pounced on by two editors who have enough experience to fix it all up themselves, but one of whom uses some of that energy to just criticise me. Pathetic, I won't bother again, it's not worth the grief, I'll stick to other projects from now on where the vultures aren't sitting and lurking, waiting to criticise someone trying to do the right thing. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)