Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Shaun Goater/1

Shaun Goater

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep. Article has been improved following comments below. There may still be room for improvement, but articles can be reassessed at any time. Geometry guy 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was made a GA some time ago when the GA requirements were much more lenient. There are quite a few unsourced statements and even some unsourced paragraphs. Spiderone (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with the nom. A lot of referencing work is needed in this article. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was only reassessed in November of last year (so about eight months ago). The few unrefernced elements should be easy enough to find, so I'll look for them. However some of the ones tagged by the requestor of this review don't even look like they need a reference. Paul Bradbury 16:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is nowhere near as good as typical GAs such as Fernando Torres or Leo Fortune-West in this department. Spiderone (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Requested references now added. As for if its good enough, that's your opinion and not why you listed it. However it has passed GA assesment, and reassesment and appears to meet all of the criteria. I am sure like all articles it could be improved, maybe you would like to have a go instead of trying to get it reassessed. Paul Bradbury 16:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about any offence caused but I honestly thought it wasn't as good as the likes of Xabi Alonso, Andy Hessenthaler and the ones I've mentioned before. It looks better now. Spiderone (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it just bothers me when people try to delete or demote etc. instead of trying to fix or create. It took me an hour to find the relevant references and had you brought that up at the talk page rather than just refer to a review I could have done the same (or so could you). These reviews take peoples time, time in this case that would be better spent reviewing other articles or ehancing or creating others. I don't agree that the articles that you mention are all better than this, in fact I think some are worse. But thats my opinion. If this had only been reviewed a few years ago I would have less of an issue. But it was reviewed recently and has not changed substancially since then, so you are effectiveley contesting that review. Guidlines etc. havn't changed substancially from Nov 2008 either. Paul Bradbury 19:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All in all, the article is well referenced. I have added one additional citation request tag to the article for sports statistic. Ideally, the Personal Life section will be expanded, although I'd like someone who is more familiar with the subject to make specific suggestions on what else needs to be included in the section in order to meet GA criteria. At the moment I suspect that this article will be a keeper once we iron out these few remaining issues. Majoreditor (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are nominators / major contributors not notified when articles are nominated for this process? I've only happened to notice this through seeing on my watchlist that Pbradbury has been making a series of edits. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is my first time and I only thought I had to notify the last reviewer. Spiderone (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have put it in the "Articles needing review and possible reassessment" section instead Spiderone (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nomination for reassessment was fine. Editors are always welcome to nominate for reassessment in a collegiate spirit. The ideal outcome is that the article will be improved and retained as a GA. In this case, improvement has already occurred and I wanted to close as keep. However, I found that the article has some unsourced speculation and/or analysis/opinion e.g., "It is likely that Bristol City valued Goater more highly, but as his contract was due to run out at the end of the season they decided to accept a lower offer rather than risk losing him on a Bosman transfer." and "As a striker, Goater was well placed to benefit from Keegan's adventurous brand of football". There is also some unencyclopedic language (unless sources are given for such phrases): "creative midfielder", "top flight football", "a healthy return of seven goals", "he was given the honour".

I'm sure these issues can easily be addressed and the article kept. Geometry guy 21:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]