Talk:Tom Thorpe

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tom Thorpe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 09:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I will review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable .

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Several things need to be adressed:

• The lead should state which league the team plays in.
  • Why? This is not currently something that we have a consensus on at WT:FOOTY, with many claiming that we shouldn't add the team's current division as it adds unnecessary work when the team is promoted/relegated. – Pee Jay 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

This might not be a reason to fail this article, but when I first read it, I caught myself thinking "What league are they playing in?" and I believe a lot of people will feel the same way.

• Many claims are unsourced: I have placed ^{[citation needed ]} where necessary. Other instances include:
  • Ref #4 does not state that it was his debut.
    • You can see it was his debut from the external link I have now added to the article (http://www.redstat.co.uk/?PlayerNo=1374). It is not easy to source information from that site due to the way it works, but I can link you to Thorpe's profile on the site, which includes all the necessary information. – Pee Jay 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Ref #5 does not even mention Thorpe.
    • The reference is there to substantiate the club's defensive record. Thorpe's specific involvement was not outstanding enough for him to be mentioned by name, apparently, but his appearances in the competition can be proven by the external link mentioned above. – Pee Jay 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Ref #8 does not state that it was his first goal.
    • No, but again, the external link has all that info. – Pee Jay 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
      • To all of the above: 1) If an external link provides the information, it needs to be included as an inline citation where needed. 2) That being said, I must add that I cannot accept the external link source as a reliable source. My work computer does not even let me access the page because it is considered to be suspicious and dangerous because of possible malware. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
        • I don't know why your work computer won't let you access the page, but it may be to do with the user interface the page uses. It's not exactly a common interface, but I'm sure if you accessed it from home, it would work for you. – Pee Jay 08:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Same applies for one instances where a date is needed, I have placed ^{[when? ]} there. This is especially pressing, since in "Birmingham City" you write the following day without giving the date that is followed up upon!
  • Done. – Pee Jay 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• more than made up for is not encyclopedic style.
  • Deleted "more than". – Pee Jay 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neither is ever-present, especially when it is unsourced. Two instances of this.
  • In what way is "ever-present" not encyclopedic. He played almost every game, therefore he was almost ever-present. – Pee Jay 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Rotherham United: This needs expansion. He already made two appearances in the Championship.
  • Done. – Pee Jay 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• The Career statistics table is not chronological!
  • It's not meant to be, since his loan spell would break up the stats from his parent club. This is standard practice among football articles. – Pee Jay 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Also, it is not up to date, even though it seems that 27 September is not the date it was last updated.
  • And now it is... – Pee Jay 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Overall, this is not GA material at this stage. There is plenty of original research here, which cannot stand. I place the article on hold for now and give the nominator(s) seven days to adress the issues at hand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Personally, I think User:Royroydeb made a mistake by nominating this article for GA status. It's a decent article, but it's clearly not ready to be a GA, especially considering how little coverage Thorpe himself has received, rather than as part of a team. – Pee Jay 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I keep it on hold for now, but if no replacement for the unreliable source/missing references can be supplied, I will have to fail this. I would anyway have stomach aches with passing this, since this is an article about a very young player, meaning a lot of things will happen in his career in the future and experience has shown that a lot of football GAs about players that are still active lose their compliance with GA criteria quite quickly (even if they are not delisted) since editors don't look after keeping them up with GA standards. A recent example is Klaas-Jan Huntelaar. This is likely to happen to this article as well, especially considering he is not even a very popular player. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

As most of the sourcing problems could not be resolved, I will have to fail this nomination. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]