Talk:Peter Barnes (footballer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Review

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Contains a short description which complies with recommendations.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
9. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
10. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
11. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
12. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
13. No original research.
14. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
15. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
16. Neutral.
17. Stable.
18. Illustrated, if possible.
19. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright – not applicable.

I'll be happy to do this review. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

After an initial look, I can see the article is stable so that deals with GACR#5. A pity there are no images but you can only include them if possible and so, no matter. I've already noticed a few minor tweaks that could be done and I'll handle these myself when I do the full review. I should be able to spare some time over the next two or three days. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead is fine after a couple of minor amendments. The structure, layout and reference section all pass. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Result

Having worked through the article, I've decided to apply WP:GAFAIL. The main reason for this is BLP one source, the 2021 book by Gary Jones accounting for no less than 106 of the 129 citations. It therefore fails the requirement for multiple reliable sources. I cannot access the Jones book so I don't know if all statements can verified by it and I've left that requirement neutral. I've also left neutral the well written criteria because, although I have performed substantial copyediting, the article would still benefit from thorough proofreading and further copyediting before it meets the required standard. I have the following comments to summarise:

• the club sub-sections need splitting, and there are some very large paragraphs which should be split too

• there has been far too much use of words like "however" and "though" which disrupt the flow when not in context; also "just" which is often unnecessary (words like "only" or "recently" are invariably better)

• don't use terms like "would be" when the tense is past

• don't use terms like "brace" which many readers will not understand

• expressions like "tenth-place" are only hyphenated if they are adjectival, as in "with a fourth-place finish"; not when nominal, as in "they finished in tenth place"

• be careful about non-use of the subject's name as confusion can arise as to who "he" is if another person has been mentioned; depending on context, start a paragraph with "Barnes was..." not with "He was..."

• avoid constructions like " a record that would not be eclipsed until..."; instead, say "a record that was not broken (or beaten) until..."

• in the ManU section, say when Atkinson signed Barnes; several more when tags were added in the later years section

• Barnes took to hiding in the communal bath waters in the dressing room to avoid Ferguson's famed 'hair-dryer' treatment. This sounds as if Barnes did it on a regular basis and it doesn't accurately reflect what the source says.

• He tried to avoid kicking opposition players, preferring to beat them with his skill. This is completely out of context. Why would a winger, trying to take the ball past a defender, kick his opponent? It seems as if two points are being made – fairness and skill – so there should be two sentences.

• avoid using a word like "featured" instead of "played"

• consistency is needed in the use of match or game; the latter is fine in a quotation or in a term like "game plan", but the sport as a whole is often called "the game" so best to use match throughout

Finally, I had to laugh when I read that Barnes was fined £750 for "making disparaging remarks about Leeds"! How much money would the government rake in if that was the law of the land? No Great Shaker (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)