Talk:Tommy Winship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Just two statements in the lead referenced. I would move those refs out to the main part of the article to (a) improve aesthetics and (b) ensure that the items you note in the lead are covered in the main part of the article and hence can be referenced there.
• You might need a hat note at Thomas Winship.
• " North-Eastern League" is overlinked in the lead.
• Link "transfer".
• "before winding down his career" unclear, it looks like he played non-league and then retired... anything more on that?
• "one of the best junior players in the North" according to whom?
• "described the team" last "team" was MUFC.
• " rivals Tottenham Hotspur: a heavy defeat at Tottenham" instead of repeating Tottenham, why not at White Hart Lane?
• It may be unclear to some that Boxing Day fixtures used to see home and away fixtures due to geographical proximity.
• How does the reader know that Manor Ground was Woolwich Arsenal's ground?
• "to give Lewis an opening" -> "to Lewis allowing him score an opening"?
• "In 1912–13," Perhaps "In the 1912–13 season" and link? Consider applying this throughout?
  • changed to "in the ... season" and linked one or two, but not keen on adding largely irrelevant season links throughout (assuming you meant that?)
• "Winship's corner; Arsenal won 2–1" no winning goal mentioned.
• "with a goal in the 5–0 elimination " which round?
• "The club began the" reiterate "Darlington began the..."
• "r in 1920–21,[35] and took his goal tally to 24 over the two seasons" mildly confusing, is the 1920-21 here the calendar years of 1920 and 1921 as opposed to the football season 1920-21?
  • restructured that section
• "United[36] " I'd move that to behind the comma.
• " "driving shot"[38] was "in all probability" " one quote directly sourced mid-sentence, the other not. I'd prefer to see that ref at the end.
  • text-source integrity would encourage us to make sure the reader can tell which quote came from which source. However, the "driving shot" adds little, certainly not enough to warrant a direct quote, so I've removed it. Thought I must have lifted it from the Bill Hooper page, but if I didn't even use it there...
• "fee of £300" can we inflate this? And other such figures?
  • not done
• "a not inconsiderable sum for a man of nearly 33." I can't see the source for this, but I assume that assertion is in the ref rather than just OR?
  • removed
• "awarded a benefit" match.
• " in a losing cause at " whimsical, try "in a defeat at"
• " for 1926–27" for the 1926–27 season.
• "all three ... all three" is repetitive.
• "former club Wallsend.[64]" overlinked.

That's all I have on a first pass, so it's on hold. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TRM, long time no speak. And thanks for picking this up so quickly, although not sure I was expecting to have no time to fiddle with it between nomination and review.

As to your suggestion about inflating the fees to modern equivalents, I was wondering what you'd advise as a meaningful inflation rate for transfer fees? The standard template {{Inflation|UK-GDP|300|1923}} gives £16,477, which would make the modern reader think why didn't anyone just pay it? yet £300 was 5.5% of the then British record fee, which could equate to £3million or whatever today. Yet when he was a man of nearly 35, Darlington were able and willing to pay £100, as well as £150 for Greaves. Using multiples of workers' wages or footballers' wages makes for similarly extreme (and unhelpful to the reader) results.

The "not inconsiderable sum for a man of nearly 33" is indeed OR, and will be removed. You don't happen to know of any sources for levels of transfer fee paid in past ages, as opposed to record ones or random individuals? it's the sort of thing that must exist and have been analysed, but possibly only in academic papers. Sorry, I'm rambling now... I've done most of the easy stuff, and am working on the rest. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It's fair enough, to explain it fully without dropping into OR and perhaps without having to go into too much synthesis (perhaps) isn't worth it. Let's leave it as-is and I'll go back over the rest of the article when you're ready. Please ping me when you're good to go? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Added a bit more content, think I've addressed all your comments. Added replies above where necessary. Don't think I've made it significantly worse, so any time you're ready to give it a second look. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, super. I made a few tiny tweaks (nothing that can't be undone) and I'm happy to promote it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)