Jump to content

Talk:Jim Baxter/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello, firstly

  • Footnotes need to be put in surname, first name format and the BBC articles need to be dated for their day of printing.
Done. Strictly speaking "day of printing" is wrong, BBC articles are published online. -Philcha (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "regarded by some" is a WP:WEASEL and not recommended in the first sentence. IT might be better to change it to "widely regarded as one of the best"
"widely regarded" would require some sort of WP:RS poll or debate on the subject, which AFAIK does not exist. "regarded by some" is accurate as the main text does not generalise but cites named commentators. The issue is similar to that of "how to prove what is scientific consensus", which arouses heated debates at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources etc. from time to time - like fireworks, best viewed from a safe distance :-)   --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drinking himself unconscious" literally? He passed out regularly?
"Black Catalogue" says "carry the comatose Baxter down the stairs" and "transform from dead drunk to mid-field general" --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the quotes for "away" - completely mundane technical term
Removed -Philcha (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change text hyphens used in the prose "against local rivals Celtic - 10 Scottish League" to mdashes with no space in between
They are already the Unicode equiv of sp ndash sp, which was equally accepted last time I looked. As a reader I dislike mdash w/o sp. --Philcha (talk)
  • Need ndash in number ranges in the references
Which part of WP:WIAGA or the guidelines it cites requires this? --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just the MOS. things like won 2-0 are done with proper hyphens so are pp. 11-12. See most proper FACs. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This GA, where the criteria are quite explicit about what part of MOS do / don't apply. MOS' nit-picking is why I can't see myself ever submitting anything to FAC, and I'm not alone in that. --Philcha (talk)
  • footnote 24 has not entered in the author name. Check others please.
Thanks, I'd missed the source's under-emphasised author name. A lot of the time it's just an anon staff writer, even in the qualities. Esp for obits, which are assembled gradually in advance. --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "brilliantly" about Rapid Vienna. Need to explain what he did - nullified some opposition player, set up a goal or what instead of just the peacock word
The source says "­ in which Baxter's brilliance had brought Rangers a 2-0 victory", without further details. --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be attributed then. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Philcha (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very skinny detail on his club career outside Rangers. This is a main problem. Only the transfer fee and goal # is given. How did the teams do?
I could look up stats for Sunderland and Notts Forest in tohse years but they would add little. Baxter's glory years were his first spell with Rangers, plus the 1967 Scotland-England internat - note that Baxter was not selected for the 1968-69 qualifiers of rthe 1970 World Cup. In my lifetime Sunderland A.F.C. have been a "yo-yo" team whose only success (in my lifetime) was a shock win in the 1973 FA Cup Final, after the end of Baxter's playing career and when Sunderland were in the 2nd div (relegated 1972). Baxter's period with Nottingham Forest F.C. was short and inglorious (Nottingham Forest F.C. does not mention him), and this was Forest pre-Brian Clough, not the team that won 2 European Cups and various domestic trophies in the late 1970s (nearly 10 yrs later). --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the country and div. Edited to "Baxter played 98 games for Sunderland in England's First Division (then the highest one), ..." as inserting it in the prev sentence would have been clumsy; and "(then the highest one)" is for the benefit of youngsters who only know of the Premier Division as the top one. Re the facts, see Sunderland A.F.C. seasons.
Edited to "Sunderland sold Baxter to English First Division club Nottingham Forest ..."
Re "whether Baxter contributed or not, otherwise it seems small ...", it was - see previous response, Baxter's glory days were over. --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, passed. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Baxter/GA1&oldid=1090426038"