This article was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2016. The result of the discussion was delete.
A fact from Ben Woodburn appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 December 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.
Sorry, but this one is a long way short of GA standard. There is an immediate problem with WP:LEAD which has only three sentences split into two paragraphs and does not adequately summarise the article content. As soon as I began reading, I had to place the lead too short template. There is a recurring lack of context because it has been written, in parts, like a newspaper report with expressions like "off the bench" which need to be rephrased so that someone who is new to football can understand them. An example of missing context is the reference to the village of Rainhill in the first section: presumably LFC have accommodation there? Other information reads as if it has been surmised from statistical data. As far as readable prose goes, the article is a collection of facts without narrative flow and, as many of the facts are trivial, the article fails broad in coverage by going into too much detail.
The combination of news and statistics leads me to the sources used and they are without exception either news or statistical websites. Some of them, like Soccerway, I would consider dubious and probably don't meet WP:RS. Another appears to be a fansite and those cannot be considered reliable. You need to be absolutely sure about source reliability and use statistical data very sparingly. Book sources should be consulted wherever possible. Newspaper reports are okay as a basis for narrative but should be worded to inform the interested reader who is not a football expert. For example, replace "off the bench" with something about substitution.
I've marked the basic criteria anyway so you can see which boxes are ticked and which are not. The main problems are the lead and the prose. I'm dubious about words to watch but that is prose-related here because of the news report style. I've left reliable sources in abeyance because, if that were the only issue, I would have placed the review on hold. I've left broad in coverage as neutral because the problems there have been brought about by the prose and the sources. Given the problems with the prose, the lead and the need for a cleanup template, I cannot place the review on hold as WP:GAFAIL applies. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
