Talk:Steve Cherry

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 07:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Picking this up, review coming as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• Consider adding professional to the opening sentence. It's generally considered the norm to distinguish the fact that a footballer played at such a level.

Sorted.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Link cap to Cap (sport).

Sorted.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Derby County

• "However Derby were relegated at the end of the 1979–80 season", the however is probably unnecessary here I would say.

Sorted.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• "in goal for four Fourth Division and four FA Cup", sentence is a little repetitive with four uses of the same sound. Perhaps something like "played in eight matches, four in the Fourth Division and..."?

Sorted.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• What happened with the "comic goal"? Seems strange to mention it but not describe what happened.

I've removed the comic bit, he just played poorly in an embarrassing defeat.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Third paragraph ends without a ref.

Sorted.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• "two-time Ballon d'Or winner", this borders on a WP:PEACOCK term for me. Is it relevant to Cherry that he had won these? I'm not so sure.

Sorted.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Walsall

• "to reach the third round of the FA Cup tie against First Division", this seems a little muddled with the addition of tie and the remaining part of the sentence.

Removed erroneous word.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Plymouth Argyle

• Plymouth are linked before this, so repeating is a bit of an WP:OVERLINK.

Sorted.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Notts County

• "only four of their next 19 games", it's generally advised to avoid switching between words and digits in the same sentence with comparable figures.

Sorted.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Statistics

• Minor point, but it's generally preferred to keep refs in numerical order. The sources for the table here are slightly out of sync.

Sorted.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• His FA Cup apps for Derby add up to 12 but only 8 are listed in the subtotal. I don't know if that throws any other totals out of sync?
• The Derby totals seem off as well, he's given 89 total apps in the subtotal but I count 93 in the season-by-season breakdown. That's probably related to the above point.

Derby only played one FA Cup game that season, must have been a typo.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• Most of the article is sourced to his autobiography, but a few spot checks on the online refs available all appear to match up. No concerns here.

Nothing much to gripe about, this is a good quality article. A few minor points above, placed on hold for now while these are looked at. Kosack (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for the review.--EchetusXe 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, great work on the article. All of my comments have been suitably addressed. Happy to promote. Kosack (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that professional footballer Steve Cherry injured himself trying to prevent his pet kitten escaping the house? Source: Cherry, Steve; Nicholas, Jonathan (2018). Cherry Picking. The Book Guild Ltd. ISBN 978-1912575-831.
  • ALT1:... that a two-year old Steve Cherry woke his family with his teething cries during a house fire? Source: Cherry, Steve; Nicholas, Jonathan (2018). Cherry Picking. The Book Guild Ltd. ISBN 978-1912575-831.
  • ALT2:... that Steve Cherry prevented an unconscious John Fashanu from choking on his tongue? Source: Cherry, Steve; Nicholas, Jonathan (2018). Cherry Picking. The Book Guild Ltd. ISBN 978-1912575-831.
  • ALT3:... that professional footballer Steve Cherry was described as a "goalkeeper, wit, raconteur and failed anorexic" after struggling to keep his weight down? Source: Cherry, Steve; Nicholas, Jonathan (2018). Cherry Picking. The Book Guild Ltd. ISBN 978-1912575-831.

ALT4:... that Kidsgrove Athletic F.C. became the first football club in England to have father and son goalkeepers when they signed Steve Cherry in 2003? Source: Kidsgrove Athletic are claiming to be the first senior club in the country to have father and son goalkeepers on their books at the same time. They recently signed experienced Steve Cherry, 43, as cover for the injured Phil McGing and the former Derby County, Walsall, Plymouth Argyle and Notts County goalkeeper has been joined by his 18-year-old son, Jon.

• Reviewed: Chang Yun Chung

Improved to Good Article status by EchetusXe (talk). Self-nominated at 11:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC).

• This article is a newly promoted GA and meets the newness and length criteria. I prefer ALT2 and ALT3; the hook facts for these are cited inline and either hook could be used, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Returning this to nom; article has been tagged. —valereee (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• While the tags have been removed, the issue with ALT2, the previously promoted hook, appears to remain per the discussion at WT:DYK. It should either be struck or a new variant proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• • Okay let's go with ALT3 then. EchetusXe 10:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• I've replaced the tags. This needs discussion. ALT3 has the same issues as the other ALTs -- they're all sourced to his autobiography. —valereee (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I have added a fourth hook and removed the original three that were cited to the autobiography. Thanks! EchetusXe 13:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• approving ALT4 —valereee (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• It has two tags. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Valereee: How can you have given this nomination the green tick of approval when you had made it ineligible by adding the banner tags? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, you're right, removing check, I'm too distracted right now to work well, sorry —valereee (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a way to get those tags reviewed? It's just me and valereee agreeing to disagree on that talk page. EchetusXe 19:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• The article's GA status is now under reassessment. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Okay thank you. Once it's been reassessed we can go ahead with the DYK then. EchetusXe 15:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment The GA reassessment should have no baring on DYK. GA review is not AFD or a high stakes problem. It's optional. The only thing holding up this review is the tags. That may get resolved before the GA reassessment concludes. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought that since the only reason the article qualifies for DYK is it being a Good Article, the article wouldn't qualify if it was demoted. Maybe BlueMoonset knows as someone with great DYK experience. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was new or expanded nom. Never mind.4meter4 (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be settled, but since I've been pinged, it is true that DYK nominations where a new GA is being reassessed are put on hold until the reassessment closes, much like nominations are put on hold while the nominated article is being considered at Articles for Deletion. (Some new GAs have been reassessed and delisted, and the DYK's were rejected because they no longer qualified.) At the moment, this is waiting on both the reassessment and the tags. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've pulled the article from prep per a WT:DYK talk discussion. It's probably best to wait out the reassessment before making a final action on this nom. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• @4meter4: Any updates on the GAR? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have supported that the GA status be maintained, but am waiting for another non-participating editor to close the review because the consensus is narrow.4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• As the GA reassessment appears likely to result in the article's GA status being kept, this is probably ready for a new review. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 Procedurally that doesn’t work. A new reviewer can’t approve the hook until the GA reassessment (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Steve Cherry/1) is closed officially, and the tags are removed from the article. Since it’s 2 editors supporting the GA status (myself included and the original GA reviewer) and 1 editor opposing, I don’t feel comfortable closing it myself. I think an editor other than myself or the others involved in the GA review could close it out and remove the tags if they agree with the narrow consensus to do so. Until then we can’t move forward at DYK. I am hoping an editor here will step up to the plate and help out at the GA review.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: Would you be okay if I closed it in your stead? I could try, but I've never closed a GAR before. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: It's ok if you do, as long as you take the time to really look at the complaints and evaluate whether they have indeed been addressed. If you think the concerns still have merit, then say so and the GA reassessment will have to continue. If you agree that things are good, close it as meeting GA, remove the tags on the article, and then inform us here. Thanks for being willing to participate.4meter4 (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: I've now closed the reassessment as a pass and I believe you are now free to remove the tags in the article as I don't think they apply anymore. As this is my first time closing a GAR, let me know if there are any issues. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: You still need to close the GA review by placing the archive top and archive bottom templates found at Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Let me know if you have any questions.4meter4 (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

On the actual GAR page? I've seen closed GARs that didn't do so, so I'm not sure if I need to. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I took care of it, and I removed the tags on the article. The article can now be assessed for DYK.4meter4 (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

New review needed, please. MeegsC (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Cwmhiraeth: Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Approving ALT4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Entire article seems to be sourced to his autobiography?

Am I missing something? —valereee (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

80% of the references are to the autobiography and the other 20% are form independent sources. The 'single source' tag for issues of notability, which is why it links to an essay about notability. The article is about a footballer with 690 appearances in professional competitions. The subject's notability is not in question so I will remove that first tag that has been inappropriately placed. The autobiography is published by The Book Guild Ltd. It is not a self-published source so I'll have to remove the second tag as again it is not appropriate for the article. Please make sure you understand how to tag articles correctly.--EchetusXe 01:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@EchetusXe the problem isn't that there is information sourced to his autobiography. It's that practically the entire article is, including at least one two dubious claims of heroism. I'm not arguing that he isn't notable. I'm arguing the sources aren't sufficient to support some of the content. Too much to one source doesn't mean not notable. Third party doesn't mean self-published. I'm retagging, let's keep discussing. Please tag me when replying, I often don't see things. —valereee (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@—valereee Your two "dubious" claims of heroism are that his teething cries at age two woke the family up to a fire and that a youth-team coach said that he was "a very relaxed goalkeeper with a lot of ability". Sorry but your definition of heroism is something I'm struggling to get my head around. I don't know how we are supposed to verify the details of a house fire with no casualties in 1962 and dig up a quote in a local newspaper about a 17-year old youth-team player in 1977. I don't understand why you are treating the true life story of a former footballer as the ramblings of a delusional fantasist. The author of the source is Jonathan Nicholas, he has written six books. This isn't some self-published blog. There are 34 other sources that are referenced, so that the claim that "practically the entire article" is sourced to his autobiography is false. The swallowing the tongue claim was reported in The Mirror and in the BBC commentary at the time. As said in the DYK discussion, it's a commonly use phrase, people know that when an unconscious person is choking on their tongue they're not literally swallowing their tongue.--EchetusXe 15:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I quote the editorial usage guide for the One source template: "This template should only be used for encyclopedic content which has a verified, cited source, but only the one source. A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used." This article has 35 different sources.--EchetusXe 15:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@EchetusXe, the second dubious heroic act I was referring to was the livesaving prevention of someone from swallowing their tongue, sourced to his autobiography. The youth coach assessment was apparently reported in actual media, so let's find that source for it.

It doesn't matter that it's not a blog, it is an autobiography, which by definition is closely connected to him. A person can't actually swallow their tongue, and I don't think we should be saying so on the front page. It's an old wives' tale, and we shouldn't be propagating it.

I don't think we should be sourcing any remarkable claim to an autobiography, and especially not on the front page. Let's just find something interesting that isn't sourced to his autobio. —valereee (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@—valereee That's fine to not have the hook about the tongue swallowing if it's the case that Fashanu only appeared to be in danger to non-medical people like Cherry, the commentator, the reporter and Fashanu himself. I wasn't sure if 'swallowing the tongue' is just an expression for the tongue blocking the airway, or whether the tongue won't actually block the airway anyway. But it needs to stay in the article because it was widely reported to have happened. I put that "he was credited with saving the life" rather than "he saved the life". I'm not going to check the archives at Derby library for Dario Gradi's quote so let's just remove that if it's going to be such an issue. I liked the other hooks but if it has to be cited by something other than the autobiography then it was pretty interesting Kidsgrove Athletic are claiming to be the first senior club in the country to have father and son goalkeepers on their books at the same time when Steve and Jon were at the club. EchetusXe 01:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@EchetusXe, I won't argue about the article. I don't think it should be primarily sourced to his autobiography, but I don't have enough interest in the subject to want to argue over it. (I made those two edits just to illustrate the kinds of things I was concerned about being sourced to his autobiography -- remarkable incidents, and stuff that could just as easily be sourced to something else.) My real concern here is DYK, which I work at regularly. I would object to most DYK hooks that were self-sourced without a very clear 'According to his autobiography' (or whatever) attribution statement. Which I think then makes a hook a bit wordy and unwieldy.

So he played for a while on the same team as his son? Yes, that seems interesting to me! I feel like that's extremely uncommon in any team sport outside of motor racing. :) —valereee (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has enough interest in the subject to argue too deeply about it lol. Okay, I have added the new hook to the DYK :) EchetusXe 13:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

—valereee In terms of how it hasn't happened before, it's that that most footballers retire by around age 35, which would be the time that a young footballer would turn professional. Goalkeeper is an unusual position, there's only 2 or 3 in a squad so opportunities are limited. It's a lot more common for a manager and player to be father and son because they are the right age for that, for both to be players it has to be an old player who had a son at a young age, then they have to be at the same club, then they have to both be goalkeepers. So yeah, very unusual indeed!EchetusXe 14:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur with valereee. Too much of the article is cited to an autobiography in violation of policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This should have never passed a GA review. I have put in a GA review request. I don't think this is ready for DYK either.4meter4 (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)