Talk:Peter Barnes (footballer)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Barnes (footballer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313044639/http://www.aboutmanutd.com/man-u-players/peter-barnes.html to http://www.aboutmanutd.com/man-u-players/peter-barnes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001201629/http://scoreshelf.com/gjbb/en/England/1978fwcENG_v_ITA to http://scoreshelf.com/gjbb/en/England/1978fwcENG_v_ITA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Barnes (footballer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Review

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Contains a short description which complies with recommendations.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
9. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
10. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
11. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
12. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
13. No original research.
14. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
15. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
16. Neutral.
17. Stable.
18. Illustrated, if possible.
19. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright – not applicable.

I'll be happy to do this review. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

After an initial look, I can see the article is stable so that deals with GACR#5. A pity there are no images but you can only include them if possible and so, no matter. I've already noticed a few minor tweaks that could be done and I'll handle these myself when I do the full review. I should be able to spare some time over the next two or three days. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead is fine after a couple of minor amendments. The structure, layout and reference section all pass. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Result

Having worked through the article, I've decided to apply WP:GAFAIL. The main reason for this is BLP one source, the 2021 book by Gary Jones accounting for no less than 106 of the 129 citations. It therefore fails the requirement for multiple reliable sources. I cannot access the Jones book so I don't know if all statements can verified by it and I've left that requirement neutral. I've also left neutral the well written criteria because, although I have performed substantial copyediting, the article would still benefit from thorough proofreading and further copyediting before it meets the required standard. I have the following comments to summarise:

• the club sub-sections need splitting, and there are some very large paragraphs which should be split too

• there has been far too much use of words like "however" and "though" which disrupt the flow when not in context; also "just" which is often unnecessary (words like "only" or "recently" are invariably better)

• don't use terms like "would be" when the tense is past

• don't use terms like "brace" which many readers will not understand

• expressions like "tenth-place" are only hyphenated if they are adjectival, as in "with a fourth-place finish"; not when nominal, as in "they finished in tenth place"

• be careful about non-use of the subject's name as confusion can arise as to who "he" is if another person has been mentioned; depending on context, start a paragraph with "Barnes was..." not with "He was..."

• avoid constructions like " a record that would not be eclipsed until..."; instead, say "a record that was not broken (or beaten) until..."

• in the ManU section, say when Atkinson signed Barnes; several more when tags were added in the later years section

• Barnes took to hiding in the communal bath waters in the dressing room to avoid Ferguson's famed 'hair-dryer' treatment. This sounds as if Barnes did it on a regular basis and it doesn't accurately reflect what the source says.

• He tried to avoid kicking opposition players, preferring to beat them with his skill. This is completely out of context. Why would a winger, trying to take the ball past a defender, kick his opponent? It seems as if two points are being made – fairness and skill – so there should be two sentences.

• avoid using a word like "featured" instead of "played"

• consistency is needed in the use of match or game; the latter is fine in a quotation or in a term like "game plan", but the sport as a whole is often called "the game" so best to use match throughout

Finally, I had to laugh when I read that Barnes was fined £750 for "making disparaging remarks about Leeds"! How much money would the government rake in if that was the law of the land? No Great Shaker (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Peter Barnes only made 30 appearances in his first spell for Leeds

To avoid a further edit war I thought I would explain why Barnes played only 30 matches in 1981/82. It appears some sources have taken this page of total appearances from the Leeds F.C. History site where they have miscounted the appearances of Barnes and Harris. https://www.leeds-fans.org.uk/leeds/history/67.html This says Barnes played 31 and Harris 15(3). However on the same site, they document each appearance individually and the total for Barnes comes to only 30 as referenced here with "30/30" (30th start out of 30) on the last game of the season v WBA http://www.ozwhitelufc.net.au/leeds_stats/leeds_united_team_details/Teamsheet_by_season/1981-82/1981-82%20West%20Bromwich%20Albion%20(a).php whereas the final start for Harris is referenced as 16/16 (16th start out of 16) http://www.ozwhitelufc.net.au/leeds_stats/leeds_united_team_details/Teamsheet_by_season/1981-82/1981-82%20Manchester%20City%20(h).php

It is perhaps because Harris took Barnes usual 11 shirt on his final start for Leeds that the mistake in the totals was made. Another site concurs that Harris, and not Barnes played in that match against Manchester City https://www.worldfootball.net/report/premier-league-1981-1982-leeds-united-manchester-city/

I have not seen a source that says Barnes played in that match to increment his total appearances to 31. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talk • contribs)

Raised at WT:FOOTBALL - the fan sites you cite above are not supported by Hugman, Neil Brown, or ENFA. GiantSnowman 19:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)