Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and I would like to know what to do to make it a potential Featured Article. Many of my GAs are on people who are in an active career and thus the articles are not stable, unfortunately this subject is deceased.

Thanks, '''tAD''' (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... – I've done some football reviews in the past and this one shouldn't take too long. Here are some of my thoughts on peer reviews so you know where I'm coming from. Runfellow (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Runfellow

General notes

• Firstly, it might be worth noting that biographies of living persons can indeed be "stable" as defined by the WP:FA?. "Stable" in this case means not subject to ongoing edit wars; as I'm sure you know, that can apply to both the living and the dead.
  • It's not about being alive, but being in an active career. I've seen GAs of football players where the main editor has moved on to other things, and the content of the career after the editor leaves is sometimes very visibly worse than what precedes it. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No issues from any of the PR tools (alt text is there, no broken links, etc.). That's always good.
• There are no duplicate wikilinks, so that's good too.
• Mercifully, you've spared us from an overly detailed career section. So many football articles – American football too! – are chock-full of details of every touch that it's nigh-impossible to read the article and get anything out of it.
• That said, the personal and early life section is sparse, and I'd guess that the FA reviewers will notice that too. If there's anything to add besides the bare bones plus one quote, I'd add it.
• They might also balk at the use of media which is not directly related to Stansfield. In other words, it's a photo of the church, or of the grounds he played on, etc. They don't add much to the article.
  • The image of the Yeovil team was when he was at it, but I can't make out whether he is included in it. I included the church because most British people of the 21st century have services at non-denominational crematoria, the fact that his was at the city's mother church is notable. But if you think the inclusion is too trivial, I can remove it. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Typically, the first paragraph of lead sections contain a bit more information. It's not a rule, per se, just kind of an expectation. Is there an extra bit of notability you can add here?
• As per WP:LEAD, you'll want to at least mention every section in the lead. This generally means at least a sentence per section, but that's flexible. Currently there isn't anything related to his early and personal life.
• "which was deemed successful" <- Who deemed it successful? The doctors, the media, or himself? Always be careful with these passive sentences.
  • Section done '''tAD''' (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early and personal life

• If "Marie" is worth mentioning, her last name (maiden) should probably also be mentioned. Unless that's a WP:BLP issue I'm unaware of.
  • I'm not sure if a resource could be found for that information except for county records, as Stansfield was an amateur footballer at that point '''tAD''' (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No comma after "after matches"
  • Done '''tAD''' (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Club career

• No comma after "a left back"
• Watch out for words like "triumph". Sports articles often contain subtle WP:NPOV issues like this.
• I'm not entirely familiar with the promotion system in English football. The lead mentions that Stansfield "helped Yeovil to promotion into The Football League", but here it states that he was injured for the vast majority of the season in which they won promotion. Is promotion based on more than one season's worth of wins and losses? If so, this is fine. If not, it seems a little disingenuous.
• You'll want to split these sentences somewhere, as they're run-ons:
  • "He recovered to feature in the next campaign, making his league debut on 16 August 2003 coming on as an 80th-minute substitute for Kirk Jackson in a 3–0 win against Carlisle United, the club's first Football League match."
  • "He scored 20 goals across the season, including two on 25 March 2005 in a 6–0 win at Farnborough Town, after coming on in the 77th minute for Daniel Carey-Bertram who had also scored two."

International career

I don't see any issues here.

Illness and death

• "It was announced" <- It might be important to note who announced this. I assume either he or his team did, but it's possible the British media did.
• Split this sentence too: "The operation was considered a success, and Stansfield joined the Exeter squad for the first day of pre-season training in July, appearing weak from chemotherapy."
• "being announced" <- Same as above. Was this at the actual game, or in a press conference perhaps?
• I don't think "Foundation" would be capitalized (capitalised?) here unless referring to the full name of the organization.

Final thought: The FA reviewers will deny this until they're blue in the face, but they're often biased about these articles based on their length. This is quite short, in relation to most featured articles, and they might point out that it must not therefore be "Comprehensive" (1b) or "Well-researched" (1c). All I'm saying is make sure you have got what you want before you submit it. If there are any other sources – think newspapers, search Google books, etc. – you might want to include, get them in there. Don't be afraid to add to the sections outside of his career. If there's a consensus among his former teammates and/or coaches on his skills or personality, you might want to include that. In any case, best of luck on your quest to improve the article. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. Runfellow (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done all of your suggestions. I will try to expand the article with descriptions from those who knew him. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a great review Runfellow! An FA should be accessible for any reader, so I am glad that I have had a review from someone who isn't as absorbed into English football as I am. About your thoughts on stability, I've had it told to me that players in an active career shouldn't be nominated because it is unstable. The only player I've seen who had an FA during an active career was Gilberto Silva, who had a very dedicated main editor who could keep up all the way. I will get around to improving the article on your suggestions as soon as possible. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point on the active career issue. Please don't take the comment on the church photo as gospel (sorry about the pun). You're welcome to use your own judgement on that. Also, the lead is noticeably improved. Remember that you need only wikilink to articles once in that section, however. Links to Yeovil Town, Hereford United and Exeter City are duplicated due to the added content. Should be an easy fix. Runfellow (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]