Talk:Russell Howarth

Russell Howarth has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 10, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 11, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 2, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Russell Howarth of the Minstermen had a trial with the Toffeemen in 2002?

Current status: Good article

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 sourced must 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.

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 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.

Football: England Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Russell Howarth is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 14:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Some serious copy-editing throughout is needed. Some examples:

Howarth started his career with the youth system of hometown club York City "in" would better than "with"

His debut for the first team came at the age of 17, playing in the first six games of the 1999–2000 season, and signed a professional contract with the club in 1999. mixture of tenses.

Despite playing in goal, in one season while playing as a left-sided midfielder he managed to score 29 goals. Clumsy - could be better phrased.

joining in 1996 on schoolboy forms, "terms" would better than "forms"

He revealed he did not want to play in the game in the fear of an injury ending his proposed transfer to Wolves. "in the fear of" is poor grammar.

There is a tendency to WP:OVERLINK, some unnecessary capitalization, the stray sentence in the Lead should be consolidated. When copy-edited thoroughly this has the potential to be a good article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The article is well referenced to reliable sources, spot-checks show that statements are supported by the cites, no evidence of OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers major aspects, focussed.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No images used.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This is near GA quality, but at present is let down by poor prose. On hold for seven days for a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well no action has been taken so this fails its GA nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russell Howarth/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Big Dom 17:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
When I first reviewed the article, the prose was not up to GA standards but after thorough copyediting from myself, User:Mattythewhite and User:Brad78 I think it is good enough now. The article doesn't contain jargon or unencyclopaedic terms as sports articles tend to, which is good. The lead section summarises the article well, taking the main points from each section, and the layout of the article is generally good. Lists and fiction are not applicable here.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
A very well-referenced article, with well over 100 cites. Every claim likely to be challenged is sourced, which is always nice to see. No problems at all with the quality of references; club websites, newspapers and books are all reliable sources. Definitely free of original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
All the major (and minor) points of Howarth's football career are covered in the article. I think there is a tendency to go into slightly too much detail in parts, but not so much as to detract from the quality. It appears as though his time at York is covered in more detail than his spells at Tranmere and Bradford, but this is natural given the sources available to the author.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I know that the main author of the article is a York City fan so it is good to see that any possible bias has been avoided.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No problems here; as far as I can see there hasn't been even a hint of an edit war in the four and a half years since the article was created.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
While it would have been nice to have a picture of Howarth to illustrate the article, I know as well as anyone how difficult it can be to find suitably-licensed images of footballers. Anyway, it is not essential for a GA to contain images so it isn't really an issue.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'm happy that following the work done on the article since the start of this GA review has raised the article to Good Article standard. Going to pass this one.

The article desperately needs a thorough copy-edit. I've done a couple of paragraphs myself but I'll leave it on hold for seven days for someone else to do the rest. Big Dom 18:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I would've appreciated being dropped a line saying the article had been reviewed, rather than finding out on my own accord a day later. Anyway, I'll have another go at copy-editing soon, but do you think it would be wise for me to make an appeal for a fresh pair of eyes to take a look at it? Mattythewhite (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the lack of message, left a note on your TP. Big Dom 11:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just given it a copyedit, whether it's quite enough I don't know. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, I'll just have a quick look through the article now to see if you've missed anything. Big Dom 09:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we got there in the end, and I'm happy to pass this one now. Congrats, Big Dom 19:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the review! Mattythewhite (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]