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

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 18:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been sat in the queue for ages. I'll review. Might be tomorrow by the time I get some comments up...Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, let's get started. As always, reviewing using WP:WIAGA

• Disambiguation: none found using the Dablinks tool.
• Images: the infobox image appears fine, the Leeds pic is from Flickr but has been checked and is fine, the Sheff Utd image is pretty poor quality but has no licensing issues.
• Dead links; the tool says everything is okay.
• Quick Fail issues: Can't see any cleanup tags, there seems at first glance through to be plenty of inline references, no evidence of edit warring

Okay, so far so good. I'll work through by section and leave any comments below:

Lead

• Looks good to me. My only comment is that I'd suggest 'rejoined his first club' rather than 'joined his first club' in the last sentence.
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Club career

• I would expect some brief details on his parents here (per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players); names at the least and a little more if pertinent (is his father a sportsman, perhaps?).
  • Names of parents added using an existing reference. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if Bridlington Rangers FC should be red-linked? Several notable young boys clubs have their own pages (Wallsend Boys Club for example)?
  • Perhaps, but I think it'd be best first establishing whether Bridlington Rangers F.C. would be deemed notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect you would know more about that than I do as I am a bit far north to know much about that club. If they are non-notable then I am happy for them to stay as they are. Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the sentence "He scored his first goal with the second goal of a 2–2 draw at Bradford City on 2 March 1996, with this proving to be his only goal in his debut first team season, in which he made 17 appearances.", the word 'goal appears three times. I appreciate of course that this is an article about a striker, but could you rephrase slightly to avoid the repetition?
  • Have reworded and split into two sentences. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "He scored his first and only goal for Mansfield with the winning goal in a 1–0 win away to Rochdale on 5 April 1997..." To avoid repetition of 'goal', suggest removing "with the winning goal"; in a 1-0 game his goal must surely have been the winner?
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd perhaps expect a bit more detail on his performance during the 1998-99 season as this looks like his breakthrough season – after scoring 6 goals in two years he scores 19 in one season and earned a move to the Premier League; perhaps he attracted media attention or approval which might be worth a mention? What persuaded Sheff wed to take a chance on a forward from a club just relegated from the second division? Which Sheff Wed manager signed him? Was it a tough or easy decision for a Bridlington lad to leave York? All little things I'd perhaps expect to find here.
  • Expanded the York and Sheff Wed sections to try and cover these. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• His career at Wednesday looks like it was disappointing; I wonder if there is scope for a comment or two about his time there? I notice, for example, that the BBC article at ref.12 claims that he "was given few opportunities to shine" for Wednesday.7
  • Expanded using the given ref. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Similarly, the same report claims that his transfer to Leicester was "a shock move" back to the Premier League. Worth noting here perhaps – it does seem odd that a man with 2 goals in 31 games is bought by a Premier League club.
  • Expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• His career at Leicester appears to have been a disappointment. Is there anything reported which might offer an explanation for this?
  • Expanded; it appears he was far down the pecking order, but haven't been able to find a ref to verify this. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• His 21 goal season at Preston seems to have been a very good one; perhaps worth adding a little depth if it is available – how did Cresswell play in the playoff final? Did he have or miss any good chances? How was he in the build up to the game (presumably he would have been interviewed as a main protagonist prior to the match) etc?
  • Expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• His transfer to Leeds after an excellent season could be worth a further comment? Worth noting that he left citing a desire to challenge for automatic promotion? Who signed him? The BBC article cited in the ref is very useful; it seems that Sheff Utd had a £1m bid accepted before Leeds made their bid; is this perhaps worth noting?
  • Expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Leeds section is good – there is a little more detail here which really benefits the article. I'd like a bit of information on why he left, though – was he one of those who had to leave during administration?
  • Expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Was Cresswell's switch to the left wing well received by the player himself? Ref.34 seems to indicate that he was happy to play there and even considered himself a midfielder at one point. Worth adding a quote on this to the article, perhaps?
  • Expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes ref.35 reliable? It looks like a fan site to me and the info on Andy Griffin on this page is certainly not right which makes me wonder about the Cresswell info.
  • Replaced with two different refs and reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why did he leave Stoke? Did he fall out of favour? Poor performances? This source seems to indicate that his first team chances were limited.
  • Expanded using the existing ref. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is ref.43 a reliable source? It looks like a (well put together) fan site to me.
  • Replaced ref. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Being left out of the side for "financial reasons" seems very strange! I'd be tempted to quote manager Danny Wilson saying "they are both fit but they were both left out for financial reasons" because it is a very odd explanation.
  • Expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, did he 'rejoin' York rather than join?7
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comments
This is a well written and enjoyable article. The work is consistently referenced and most of the sources are sound (those which mightn't be are noted in the list above). My only real queries are some slight possible prose tweaks and a more substantive concern regarding breadth of coverage; whilst I appreciate that there is a fine balance to strike between c.3a of the GA criteria and a WP:summary style, I do feel that this article is perhaps a little too sparse in some places and that whilst the article contains many salient facts and figures that alone isn't quite sufficient for 'breadth'.

That said, the other GA criteria are pretty much met here and most of the above are minor quibbles and I expect they can be resolved in reasonably short order. I'm happy to place this one on hold pending a response to the above. Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A soundly written, comprehensively referenced, well-illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I've assessed this article against the requirements of WP:WIAGA and, in the light of improvements carried out, I'm awarding GA-status. Well done! Please consider reviewing an article against the criteria. Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the review. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]