Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robin Friday/archive1 - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 24 June 2011 [1].

Robin Friday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria, simply put. I think that a quick copy-edit by somebody other than me may be necessary, as well as a few fresh sets of eyes, but I think that the meat of an FA is already here. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No citations to Hayes 2006
  • See here for a list of problematic links
  • Why does the format of note 9 differ from the other website citations?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hayes included only for Cardiff statistics, but forgot to place inline citation with page number – will rectify.
    • I don't know why those pop up as problematic – click through manually and they work fine.
    • The backpagefootball one I will admit is perhaps stretching it a bit – I was happy with it for GA but I don't think it's essential so I've taken it out. There was only one claim it stood alone for anyway, and it wasn't a big one. The other two are both fine, however. Richard Rundle's Football Club History Database gives a list of reliable sources here. Statto, meanwhile, uses Tony Brown's SoccerData databases. Brown has published many definitive statistical books and The Football Association itself uses his databases. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 05:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just as additional info, FCHD was accepted as reliable by Eadlgyth over at FLC a couple of years back. I can link to the discussion if it would help..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've used FCHD on a number of FLCs and a couple FACs if memory serves, but I remember the point being brought up at each occasion that reliability needed to be proved each time; I'm not having a go at you, I'm just explaining why I took the line I did above. The point I'm trying to make is that FCHD has previously been reliable but we shouldn't take it as so for that reason and no other. I think we're agreed here in any case. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Read through most of the article and have a few concerns that should be quick to resolve. Will try to read the rest at some point.

  • Most of the time the lead's content doesn't have to be cited, but for quotations like "the complete centre-forward", I'd expect to see references for them.
  • Borstal, first marriage and the Isthmian League: Some over-citation can be seen in this section; for example, four straight sentences end with reference 10. Only the one reference at the end is truly needed.
  • 1976–77 season: "Friday reported back for pre-season training in very bad condition, and although Hurley claimed that Friday was trying very hard to regain fitness". The two "very"s don't serve that much purpose here, coming off as excess verbiage. The sentence wouldn't be harmed if they were just removed. There's a third one later in the sentence as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've referenced quotations in the lead. Funnily enough the over-citation is the result of an attempt to counter under-citation, I've rectified it as you said. Finally, I've taken the "very"s out. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have "Biographer Paulo Hewitt" at the end of Post-retirement and "journalist Paulo Hewitt" at the start of Style of play and legacy. I'm thinking that his first name and profession (writer) don't need to be repeated the second time around, especially because it's close to the first usage.
      • "Friday would kiss them or fondle with their testicles." Not too familiar with the usage here, but I would have thought it would be without the "with", as in "fondle their testicles." If it's a common usage, then it's fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: The images that are PD check out as being okay. As for the fair use image, after reading through the style/legacy section and checking the rationale, I actually think that this image would be okay staying in the article, though if any image people want to provide a second opinion here they can. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content review: (as that seems to be the style here!) - I found it incredibly interesting, funny, tragic and emotive. Really enjoyed it, highly accessible and well written. I made a few notes on the talk page which I'd like to see addressed but in any case, this is a lovely article, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.