Talk:Danny Newton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) 11:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Initial thoughts - this not a sports almanac - this is an encylcopedia. There is far too much detail here - we don't need every game or every goal, just imoortant career milestones covered by reliable sources (and not simply match reports). The language is also reading like a tabloid. GiantSnowman 11:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

We’re definitely going to struggle to get this one over the line here if you believe the article is too detailed!

In no way have I listed all of Newton’s 317/118 games/goals in the prose like you're suggesting. Not even close. Even seasons where he’s scored close to 30 goals have been kept to five/six lines. I’ve just gone over the article and I see debuts, first goals, braces, hat-tricks, four goals, goals in important games to survive relegation / local derbies. Are these not milestones / worthy of mention in a GA standard article?

If this article were to fail to meet GA standard for being too detailed and how it reads, the bigger concern for me would be how on earth the other 26 GA status I’ve produced have met the required standard. Because they are as detailed (some a lot more) and read exactly the same. Surely for consistency, you would have to review all of these and then go through and fail the ones (presumably all of them) that are too detailed?

These 26 passes have been passed by 24 different Wikipedians and not one has mentioned either the level of detail (only wanting more detail!) or how the article has read.

Appreciate this response will read only as defensive, but I just thought this was worthwhile noting prior to review having read your initial comments. SBFCEdit (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

What makes them important though? Your view. Wording like "This was to be a common theme during his disjointed spell at Brackley" etc. is completely inappropriate as well. It smacks of WP:OR/WP:POV. GiantSnowman 15:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't think I should mention anything beyond his debut at Brackley? Surely the reader will wonder why he spent only four months there, making just eight appearances? Eight appearances in four months, of which seven were as a substitute, being described as "disjointed" is wholly accurate. Not sure how that is my point of view. SBFCEdit (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"He made eight appearances, seven of which came as a substitute" is all that is needed/supported by the sources. GiantSnowman 15:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Describing something for what it is using statistics and references as a support certainly isn't "completely inappropriate" as you initially said, a touch dramatic! If ever there was a word to describe the spell it is 'disjointed' – but I'll remove it as I would do under any review. Will also be adding a style of play section later. Cheers. SBFCEdit (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I just read through the article and one thing I have to say towards GA status is that the article needs some photos. If you look at most GAs I am sure you will see a photograph of that player. Govvy (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: A picture would be nice I agree, but pretty sure it doesn't have any bearing on defining GA status articles. If it does then they weren't mentioned for plenty of GA articles I've produced without pictures. SBFCEdit (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The GA criteria actually states "The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement". It would be very harsh if we had to fail articles on something that is largely out of the editor's hands. Kosack (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It was more of a recommendation, not a concern. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Review by Mike Christie

Per this comment, GiantSnowman never meant to be the reviewer for this, so I'll pick it up to review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Footnote 1 says "Stevenage v Newport County matchday programme"; presumably this should have a match date on it? Without that someone who wants to verify the source won't know which programme to refer to.
• Newton remained at Hinckley for the 2010–11 campaign and he continued to play a largely peripheral role during the season. He made 28 appearances during the campaign, of which 18 were from the substitute's bench, and scored three goals in a season where Hinckley finished in 15th place in the league. The source for the first sentence here is Soccerway, which only gives numbers, with not comments; describing this as peripheral isn't unreasonable, but I think it would be better to tie the language more directly to the limited information in the source. How about "Newton remained at Hinckley for the 2010–11 campaign, making 28 appearances during the campaign, of which 18 were from the substitute's bench. He scored three goals in a season where Hinckley finished in 15th place in the league."? The problem with interpretive comments is that we don't know why he only appeared in 10 lineups. Perhaps he was injured for part of the season; perhaps there were discipline problems. For all the source tells us he might have been a key player in the manager's eyes, in the matches he played; I'm betting that you know this description is accurate, but it doesn't seem verifiable to me.
• Similarly a strong strike partnership with Andre Gray is our interpretation -- in fact neither cited source mentions a partnership, but presumably you could source Gray's time at Hinckley via Soccerway easily enough, and show he and Newton were leading scorers. Calling this a "strong strike partnership" is our take on it, not something verifiable from the sources.

I'm going to pause here so we can discuss this point and get to a consensus, since I'd guess there will be similar points scattered through the article. I'll drop a note on your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Hi Mike. Thanks for picking this up.

• I've added the programme date for the Newport match.
• I will always describe things accurately using the source(s) at hand, but you are right, without wider information to hand in this instance, it needs rejigging. I have gone through the remainder of the article and removed a couple of similar lines and changed a few things about. Let me know what else there is that falls under this bracket.
• The Comet article does reference his strike partnership with Gray, with the Soccerway profile (also referenced, showing Hinckley's matches) showing the pair scored 36 goals between them that season. I will remove it altogether for now, but will perhaps re-add citing Gray's time at Hinckley via Soccerway as you stated and remove the words "strong" from the sentence. Cheers. SBFCEdit (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I've struck the points above, and I'll go ahead with reviewing the rest of the article; thanks for fixing those. Feel free to put your replies after each point, by the way; it's up to you, but I think it's a little easier to follow what's been fixed and what hasn't if we do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

After reading through the rest of the article, and making a couple of copyedits, I don't see anything else to comment on, so I'll go ahead and promote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for reviewing the article Mike. SBFCEdit (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)