Denis Law

Self-nom. This article spent the full four weeks on peer review (link) and was on FAC in August (link). It failed for two reasons: not enough votes were cast (2 support, 1 object), and User:Carnildo objected to the images not having fair use rationales. I've added the rationales now so I consider all previous objections to have been dealt with. Please have a look at the article if you've got time. It would be a pity if it failed solely through a lack of votes.

Thanks, CTOAGN 10:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Very mild object, the Return home and After football sections should be merged as the first is terribly short. Will support if changed. -- Elisson • Talk 10:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blimey, that was quick. I've merged the two sections now. CTOAGN 10:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. -- Elisson • Talk 14:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite support, lots of good information here. Phoenix2 16:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• my concerns have been addressed, support vote a couple of paragraphs down. Neutral for now - I like the article but I want to read it through a couple more times. Could you please reload the images with the black bands cropped from them? It detracts from overall look of the article. I love the first photo though - the two blokes on the left look like they're ready to snatch the contract out of his hands the moment he signs. Rossrs 16:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Jiy has got rid of the bands. CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy with the image, and I think the article is better off without that second one. I'll wait to see how User:Nichalp's comments are addressed, but I think the article is developing very well. Rossrs 12:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the only objections left from Nichalp are the references and the right-alignment of the table columns. I'll do the alignment as soon as I find out how (unless someone beats me to it - should only take a few seconds I think?). I don't think the references are a valid objection, but if you disagree let me know. I'd give it a bit more thought if I thought it was a majority opinion (although I'd still find it highly perplexing). CTOAGN 20:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support I've right aligned the columns. I don't object to the references as you've done them, although I prefer Nichalp's suggestion. Nichalp frequently comments on FAs and as such has an excellent knowledge of what the standard is. Although I agree with his viewpoint, the type of references to be used are not part of policy, and are guidelines only. The referencing style you've used is one of several acceptable formats - not my favourite, but it's a valid choice in my opinion. Rossrs 14:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- One comment I do have, though, is that "squint" may be a little confusing to American readers--I've never heard "squint" used in the U.S. to refer to the condition indicated in the article you link to. I have no objection to the article's being in British English, but is there a more universally understood term you could use for his condition? Other than that, I cleaned up some of the prose that was a little bit funky. The article is nicely organized and well-researched. As a fan of the sport, I'm glad to see it have another well-written article.Kevin M Marshall 00:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what term is commonly used for 'squint' outside the UK, but will be happy to put something in a footnote if you let me know what it's called where you live (I like footnotes...). 'Strabismus' might be too formal for a football bio imo. CTOAGN 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I understand what you're describing, I think we'd call it "lazy eye" (if one eye wanders around) or "cross-eyed" (if the eyes both point in) in the U.S. The problem isn't really one of terminology; the problem is that strabismus is so vague and talks about so many things I can't figure out exactly what "squint" means. I'd never heard of the word "strabismus" either, so perhaps I'm just more ignorant than I should be when it comes to eye disorders. But I like to think that if it's a problem for me, it's a problem for a large number of US readers. All that being said, however, it's more of a problem for the strabismus article than for this one. If the average Brit knows exactly what you mean by squint, just leave it as is and let the editors of strabismus fix that page.Kevin M Marshall 01:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well researched article. In my opinion, it would read a bit better if each footnote were moved to the end of the sentence it occurs in. Pburka 01:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support The model Wikipedia article. Ruennsheng 02:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'm genuinely flattered. Glad you like it. CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comprehensive and well-researched - well done! Brisvegas 09:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent article – I remember doing some clean-up work on it ages ago, right after it was first created. It's grown a fair bit since then! Great piece. Angmering 20:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object I might just have ADD, but the article is quite boring for a FA. Very good article if you're interested in that sort of thing, but people want to really see interesting things on FA. Maybe some more pics too. Spawn Man 05:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The objection is unactionable. Mention what needs to be done to 'enhance' it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Nichalp here. Making it interesting to people who aren't interested in the subject is a lot to ask, and isn't in the guidelines. And I'd rather saw off my own legs than add more images. CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Well that's not my fault... Also, we are voting on which articles should be put on the main page, not what we should do to make them better!?! If you all want to vote on what to do to enhance the article, I suggest you move this article to the Peer Review page. As I said, people don't want boring topics on the main page, and I think this is a boring topic. I'm changing my vote to object. (unsigned. added by User:Spawn Man)
  • Your vote is still unactionable. Have you read the guidelines for voting at the top of the page? Objections need to state a specific rationale that can be addressed, otherwise they may be ignored. Your boredom is unfortunate, but it's something only you can deal with. Rossrs 09:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - The images in this article are woeful. Both suffer from pixelation, the second suffers from gross colour distortion and is poorly cropped. I rarely object to articles based on images but these are exceptionally bad images. Cedars 06:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been sorted out now. The first has been cleaned up and cropped by User:Jiy (I only wish I'd noticed before I downloaded GIMP and made the same changes myself). The second has been removed, partly because its quality was poor and partly because someone seems to have introduced a new 'one screenshot per article' rule and it came from the same DVD as the first image. If there's still anything that you object to, please let me know. CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first image is still fairly pixelated. It would be really desirable to get a better quality picture, preferably one of him actually playing football. Cedars 01:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, and I'd like to. The problem is that all of Law's career took place in the last fifty years, so all the images I'd like to include are copyrighted. I don't know how familiar you are with the rules of fair use/copyrighted images on Wikipedia but they really make life difficult for subjects where a copyright-free image is unavailable. Knowing this, I originally submitted this article as a featured-article-without-pictures (see /archive1) but PopUpPirate objected because he felt the article would really benefit from a picture (and I agree with him). If I upload anything here that even might be less than 100% ok, it will be objected to and that objection will be upheld. IIRC, at one stage recently something like half of FACs were being rejected on this basis. Promotional images are at best a grey area - there are people trying to get them removed from Wikipedia altoghether (this possibly includes Jimbo, although I can't remember off the top of my head), and even when a copyright holder gives their permission for an article to be used on WP, this is still not enough (whether someone's trying to get the article featured or not) - someone will remove the image as all mirrors need to be able to reuse the images for any purpose. Given that, the only copyright-acceptable images I've been able to find of Law's career have been screenshots uploaded under fair use. There is now a one-screenshot-per-article limit on WP, and I think the one image we need above all is one with Law's face in it from some point in his playing career. I don't have access to television archives so this one is the only one available (and as you can see, it's black and white footage from the early 60s). I might be able to tidy it up with GIMP (although I'm no expert with this - anyone else think they could have a go?) but can't promise I'll be able to make it any better. In any case, while I accept it's not perfect, and I'll happily upload a better image if I can find one with an acceptable copyright status, I really don't think it's so bad that it spoils the article to the point of turning it from featurable to not featurable, now that jiy has tidied it up, especially given Rossrs' comment above. CTOAGN 20:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object – 1) Sections such as ==Growing up==; ==World Cup 1974== are too short. 2) The equiv of £115,000 in today's terms value should be mentioned. 3) Parents names? 4) He was an avid Aberdeen supporter, and would go and watch them when he had enough money to do so, watching local non-league teams when he didn't this is not in the encyclopedic tone. 5) Internazionale, not introduced. Mention who or what the linked terms are about: eg Italian club Torino 6) Goal image is terrible. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Sections such as ==Growing up==; ==World Cup 1974== are too short.
    • I disagree. His childhood wasn't notable and putting more about it would unbalance the article IMO. The 1974 World Cup was two weeks of Law's eighteen year career during which he played in one match, which as World Cup matches go wasn't that notable. Please conver
  • 2) The equiv of £115,000 in today's terms value should be mentioned.
    • Good idea. Done.
  • 3) Parents names?
    • Didn't seem relevant to me, but I had a look through the FA log and noticed the last featured bio had them, so I've put them in.
  • 4) He was an avid Aberdeen supporter, and would go and watch them when he had enough money to do so, watching local non-league teams when he didn't this is not in the encyclopedic tone.
    • Didn't look that bad (I know I've seen worse in recent FAs), but I've reworded it.
  • 5) Internazionale, not introduced. Mention who or what the linked terms are about: eg Italian club Torino
    • Internazionale is one of the most notable football clubs in the world. The article points out that he's in Italy at that time, and IMO it would be superflous to put something like 'the Italian club Internazionale', a bit like writing 'the English club Manchester United'. People can always click the link if they want to know more.
  • 6) Goal image is terrible.
    • I've removed it, for the reasons given in my response to Cedars' objection above.
  • CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) The sections should be balanced, I look for a minimum of two paragraphs and so is currently unbalanced. I'm sure another paragraph could be added on his first 14 years, more about his schooling, family etc. The =world cup= and =after football= can be merged into a single heading =later career=, or something like that. Its currently too short. 2) I'd prefer if you could add the equivalents of £55,000, £110,000 and £115,000 in the text alongside instead of using footnotes. 3) Internazionale is one of the most notable football clubs... that may be true, but don't expect everyone to know that it is notable. We have a wide audience, and some may not have heard of the group. I don't think its too taxing to prefix 'Italian club etc before it? The use dependes on the context. He joined MU would directly imply that ManU is a club, but the wording here: Internazionale tried to... is ambigious. Internazionale could very well be the controlling body of Italian football. 4) Could you right-align the table in the and move it higher up in the text? It seems lost down there. 5) Please convert all those ibid notes (4-24) to ((inote))? They aren't useful and are highly distracting. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) The sections should be balanced, I look for a minimum of two paragraphs and so is currently unbalanced. I'm sure another paragraph could be added on his first 14 years, more about his schooling, family etc. The =world cup= and =after football= can be merged into a single heading =later career=, or something like that. Its currently too short.
      • Merging it that way would be illogical, so I've merged =World Cup 1974= with =Back to Manchester City= instead. I think there's as much info on his childhood as there needs to be - it wasn't notable at all - but could have another look in his bios and see if there's anything I can add. Do you know of a link to anything saying what the minimum size for a section should be or how many paragraphs should be in one? I've looked but haven't been able to find one.
      • I found something to add, so the section's now a little longer and — wait for it — in two paragraphs! How good is that?
    • 2) I'd prefer if you could add the equivalents of £55,000, £110,000 and £115,000 in the text alongside instead of using footnotes.
      • Can't agree with this. It would make the sentences too clunky, and with this being in the introduction, that's a real no-no. I've added the values for £55k and £110k in footnotes though.
    • 3) Internazionale is one of the most notable football clubs... that may be true, but don't expect everyone to know that it is notable. We have a wide audience, and some may not have heard of the group. I don't think its too taxing to prefix 'Italian club etc before it? The use dependes on the context. He joined MU would directly imply that ManU is a club, but the wording here: Internazionale tried to... is ambigious. Internazionale could very well be the controlling body of Italian football.
      • I've put something in along these lines.
    • 4) Could you right-align the table in the and move it higher up in the text? It seems lost down there.
      • Good idea about right-aligning the figures, but I don't know how to do it. If you or anyone else reading this would like to make the change, please do. (done! Rossrs 14:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)) Where would you rather the table went? Above the Career Summary? I don't think that would improve anything. It definitely doesn't belong in the body of the article text.[reply]
    • 5) Please convert all those ibid notes (4-24) to ((inote))? They aren't useful and are highly distracting.
      • No, I don't know of any requirement to do this and believe it would spoil the article rather than improve it. It's well known that a lot of people don't trust Wikipedia articles because they can be edited by anyone and you don't know where they got their information (or even if they just made it up themselves.) Citing sources properly goes a long way towards meeting this objection, and I think we'd really benefit if a lot more articles were had their sources shown in this way. Inotes are only useful to people who hit the edit button - people who are reading a 'mirror' of Wikipedia won't be able to see them and lot of people on Wikipedia won't know that they're there. See Template talk:Inote#Reasons not to use inote. While the number of citations in this article is somewhat high, I've tried to keep them to less well-known or more contentious facts. So "Denis Law scored in the 1963 cup final" isn't cited because it's easy to look up and few people would question it, while "Liverpool wanted to sign him but couldn't afford to" is, for the opposite reasons. It's also worth noting jiy's comment below.
      • Should point out that I'll be offline for the next 24 hours so there might be a delay before I reply. CTOAGN 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Object. Nichalp has good reasons to question the reference style. The requirement is the "appropriate use of inline citations" as per our FAC criteria. Using "Ibid" to refer to the same obvious source over and over in an online article is not making the article that much more verifiable; it's just adding a lot of fairly pointless footnotes for very obvious facts. Just look at notes 4, 7, 9-10, 12 and 17-27 (28-30 are so easily verified that I question using more than one source or even any source at all) and to a lesser extent 13, 16, 18. They all refer to quotes that aren't even full sentences or things like Law being refered to as the King which is going to be disputed by no one except people who are too sloppy to actually check out even the most basic of references before demanding footnotes. You don't need to refer to specific pages in a written source just to make people believe that someone used a rather bland experession like "very disappointed", for example. Footnotes are intended for comments that don't fit in the prose or to refer to complex or highly disputed facts, not just quote snippets and minor factoids. Otherwise they become mere eyecandy that needlessly disrupt the flow of the text. The reference section also isn't complete, since only two of the written sources are actually listed there. Also, several sections consist of almost only single-sentence paragraphs which is not an appropriate style of prose for any article. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A suggestion - I think Nichalp makes valid points, but I don't think adding another paragraph about Law's childhood necessarily adds to the article. The short paragraph "Growing up" is a bit too brief. The other way you could deal with this, is to merge the "Growing up" and "Huddersfield Town" sections into one, such as "Early years" (I don't think it's the best title but I can't think of anything better). That way his early life is wrapped up in 3 paragraphs, the reader is taken to the beginning of his career without really going into it, and at this point he's still only 18 years old. That would make the article look a lot better if you can't significantly add to discussion of his childhood. Perhaps you could also merge the short paragraphs towards the end of the article "World Cup 1974" etc, into a larger section. Rossrs 12:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merging the first two sections doesn't make sense to me as there's no obvious reason why the two subjects belong in a single section. He's 22 and an international footballer at the end of the Huddersfield section. I could move the first paragraph of Huddersfield into Early years, but then Nichalp would complain that Huddersfield was too short. I took your point about merging the world cup in with his last season at city - not sure it was necessary but if both of you think so then you've probably got a point. Anything else you think I could add? Should point out that I'll be offline for the next 24 hours so there might be a delay before I reply. CTOAGN 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The first section is now a little longer. Does that seem ok? CTOAGN 20:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The expansion looks ok, but I still would prefer the inotes. Use of inotes does not mean that it is less referenced. See the Economy of India, where we've made good use of inotes and refs together. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great work - nice job sorting all the image palaver out too!!! --PopUpPirate 19:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild object On reflection, the colour screencap of his goal for Man City is beneath the quality a FAC should have. A better-quality version (i.e. > 256 colours), correctly cropped, is needed. Qwghlm 20:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorted. See above. CTOAGN 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of the above, change my vote to Support Qwghlm 23:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nicely referenced. —jiy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object

1. One sentence paragraph in intro
2. Growing up Sentences short - and section is in whole quite short as compared to rest of articletoo. Either make a good-size paragraph or expand the current ones (actually on second look it doesn't look that bad)
3. Paragraphs in general are quite short (does not effect objection, just a comment)
4. No external links (will not affect objection)

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Just an excellent overall article Kingfisherswift 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]