Talk:Peter Swan (footballer, born 1966)/GA1

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AGK (talk · contribs) 00:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Review

edit
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) While I tend to write more formally than most editors, I don't think I am inaccurate in my assessment that this article is written in an unduly informal tone. I get the impression from the article that Swan was a favourite of the author, and that kind of thing is expected in a biography or obituary of the subject - not from the author of an enyclopedia entry. There are several anachronisms in the article, for instance "with Swan, the target man to Payton the predator, getting twelve of these", that I do not understand - and that presumably need to be rewritten in layman's terms; not all readers will be familiar with Swan, his clubs, or indeed the game itself.   Fail
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Over-reliance on Swan 2006 is concerning, but can be allowed in light of the presumable dearth of sources on the subject.   Neutral
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) An auto-biography is a poor source for a balanced article, but is used broadly to verify factual statements, like the dates of transfers. When issues like why the player wanted to transfer begin to arise, the use of the auto-biography becomes still more concerning, but on balance I am (barely) happy to accept that source.   Neutral
    (c) (original research) All content accords with WP:OR.   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Article does not comply with the requirement that content be presented neutrally: reads as unduly flattering of the subject.   Fail
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass

Result

edit
Result Notes
  On hold On hold pending the response of the requester of the review, but leaning towards failing the review unless the issues outlined above can be rebutted or corrected. I hope my feedback has been helpful so far, and I am watching this page and will see any response. AGK [] 00:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I really do not see how the article is 'unduly flattering'. It shows him to be less than a model professional (boozing sessions before a big game), mentions him costing Port Vale promotion by getting sent off at Wembley, his concealing evidence to pass a medical examination he should have failed (maybe that counts as fraud, I don't know), refusing to play (similar to Carlos Tevez), openly admitting he signed for clubs "for the money" as opposed to sporting ambition, disrupting training sessions, getting into scuffles with teammates, disrespecting managers, 'delight' at his team being relegated, sent off ten times in his career, playing for Rothwell Town in 1988 (clear breach of his Leeds contract and a sackable offence), his numerous unsuccessful attempts at business dealings post-retirement, even the fact that his autobiography gets his own stats wrong!
The article shows that managers who rated Swan tended to lose their jobs, and those that did not get along with him went on to achieve enormous success (Howard Wilkinson & Neil Warnock). However to explicitly state this would be original research. I am happy to rewrite any sentences you think are unduly complimentary or unclear for readers unfamiliar with the player or the sport in general--EchetusXe 12:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough; I may have mistaken the biographical tone for flattery. If you could reconsider my other remarks, I'll look again at the tone, and we can revisit the review in a few days. Thanks for responding. Regards, AGK [] 13:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ok, great. Any 'in world' terms or turns of phrase can be changed or linked to an appropriate article.--EchetusXe 14:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Any further comments? Neither page has been touched in two weeks. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy with the article unless there are any specific concerns anyone has?--EchetusXe 13:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply