Talk:George Tweedy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Tweedy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

George Tweedy was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 9, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 5, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal 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
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Football: England / Arsenal Mid‑importance

	Association football portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Arsenal task force (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Possible Mistake?

Upon revision of this article, it produces ambiguity as to which Willington Tweedy is from. It states he was both born in Willington, County Durham - a market town principally known for it's coal, and Willington on Tyneside, which is Willington Quay - a mere suburb of Newcastle Upon Tyne close to Wallsend.

I assume the fact he played for Willington F.C (Durham) and Crook Town means he was born in the former?

This website [1] says he was born in County Durham but I don't know how reliable they are? Random Passer-by 17:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

In reviewing the article in accordance to the Good Article Criteria, I have decided to decline the article's GA nomination at this time because of concerns mentioned below. For style comparisons for an article in this subject area, I referenced the FA quality soccer article of Denis Law and the GA quality article of David Beckham.
1. It is well written. - Weak Pass

While there is no glaring violation of WP:MOS, there are some awkard sentence constructions (especially in the Grimsby Town section) that I would recommend looking at.
The article makes excellent use of wiki-links on soccer related terms so that even a Yank can follow and understand the article.
While not a violation of MOS, per se, I do think the editors of this article should consider utilizing the more formal last name address in the article versus the first name "George". The informal use seems to indicate that Wikipedia is on a first name basis with it's subject and is less encyclopedic in tone.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass

The article is well referenced with reliable sources and in-line citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs improvement

A line that immediately caught my eye was " a World War II interrupted career" but yet no mention of what Tweedy did during the war. At the very least it's worth a few lines like in the Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio articles.
The article is also missing a more detailed look at career stats (outside of the brief summary mention in the info box). A year by year table style breakdown would be nice. As a reader, I am curious as to what years were his peaks and valleys and a table would help with that.
I would also like to see the England section more fleshed out. It is mentioned that Tweedy had a difficult time acquiring caps because of the play of fellow goalkeepers. What happened in 1936 that allowed him to finally get one?
Another question that popped into my mind while reading was in regards to the "one club player". The adjoining wiki-article mentioned that was a rare thing which made me wonder if there was any sources with information on why Tweedy remained a one club player. (Did he like the area and accepted less money? Did the owners and fan make sure that he stayed?, etc)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

The article does a good job of maintaining an NPOV tone with its subject.

5. It is stable - Pass

The article is relatively young with a short article history.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

Though is there a way to move the picture up to the top of the info box?

I want to thank the article's editors for their hard work and dedication in getting the article up to this point. The article was an enjoyable read and was a nice introduction to man with an undoubtedly interesting life and career. I think that once more details about that life and career are fleshed out that this article will certainly be on a good footing for GA status. I encourage the editors to work towards those improvements and consider resubmitting for GA consideration. If you have questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As none of these things have been addressed (and I think the former reviewer was kinder than I would have been regarding the prose), I'm failing this GA. Consider a peer review and some expansion before renomination. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone asked me to expand a bit on this. I failed it because it looks like it was renominated without dealing with these things. I also didn't put it on hold because there didn't seem to be a reason to - it hadn't largely dealt with these issues in the month before. I don't know if this is really all that comprehensive, and the prose is still somewhat messy. If you relist it because you disagree, I won't touch the renom again, but I'd suggest seeing if you can get a few extra eyes to look at this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]