Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/James Milner/1
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.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Odd one this. Was originally listed in 2007 and delisted in 2016. Somehow, it passed GAN in 2021 despite being very low on detail for Milner's time at Liverpool.
This not only verges on violating GA criterion 3 (covering the major aspects of the topic), but also calls criterion 4 (neutrality) into question, as the article is thus biased in length and in detail towards his early career.
Eager to hear people's thoughts on this one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see how a slight disbalance in weight causes neutrality issues? Unless the person did loads of controversial things while in Liverpool? Not convinced it fails 3 either. There is a massive difference between broad (say at least 2 paragraphs on each issue) and comprehensive. Are there specific details you believe to be missing? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't exactly call it a slight disbalance in weight. There is more information on his two years at Newcastle and Aston Villa, during which he performed passably in two fairly mediocre teams, than there is in his eight years playing for one of the best teams in the world, about which far more has been written and studied. There's very little information about his role in the team, how his tenure there has been viewed, or anything beyond "on [date] Milner [played ***th game/won thing/scored goal] x20". There are huge numbers of reliable sources describing all of the above accessible with just a Google search too, which makes their omission inexplicable, to my mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
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.