Talk:Stuart Parnaby

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Mattythewhite in topic GA Review
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stuart Parnaby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 08:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply


Hi there, I'll be reviewing this nomination in the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 08:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • I'll leave this up to you, but I don't know if being an unused substitute in the League Cup final is important enough to be in the lead - to me, it just seems like him not playing in a game is considered a highlight of his career.
  • "...but struggled with injuries before being leaving two years later." → remove "being"

Club career

edit

Middlesbrough

edit

Birmingham City

edit

Return to Middlesbrough/Hartlepool United

edit

These sections look good to me.

International career

edit
  • "on 23 June 1998 when starting their 4–1 defeat to the United States" → doesn't really make sense.
  • "...to the United States (US), as part of the tour of US." → A touch repetitive; I'd remove "(US)" and record "as part of the tour of the US" to read "as part of the tour of the country".
  • "...as they were eliminated by the Czech Republic..." → makes more sense as something like "before they were eliminated..."

Personal life

edit

Overall comments

edit

One question I have is about the formatting of scores where Parnaby's team lost; I'm much more familiar with another variety of football, where the Wikipedia convention would be to say "lost 14–21" rather than "lost 21–14". I'm not sure if soccer has a similar convention but the following scores would need to be changed if there was one:

  • "1–0 home loss against Manchester United"
  • "2–0 home loss to Blackburn"
  • "3–2 away loss against Chelsea"
  • "2–1 home loss against Leicester City"
  • "1–0 away loss to Stevenage"
  • "4–1 defeat to the United States"
  • "3–0 defeat to France"
  • "2–0 defeat to Portugal"
In my experience, it's standard for the larger figure to be presented first in a scoreline in English football, regardless of whether the result was a win or a loss for the player's team. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

  I'll place the nomination on hold for now, no rush with the changes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@PCN02WPS: Thanks for the review, I've attempted to address your comments, and credit to @Robby.is.on: who kindly made some fixes. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
From what I can see the article looks good! I appreciate your clarification on the score formatting and the lead. I'm not sure what tripped me up so much about "when starting their 4-1 defeat" - upon rereading it, that sentence was totally clear. Earwig looks totally fine, the references I checked look good, the images are relevant and their licensing is good, and the article is very well-written. All of my concerns have been addressed so I'm happy to   pass this! Well done! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@PCN02WPS: Great! Thanks again for the thorough review. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply