Wikipedia:Peer review/Billy Liddell/archive1

Billy Liddell

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This page needs fresh eyes. Is the article ready for FAC? I've adapted the basic structure and style from articles like Duncan Edwards, although there isn't a style of play section. Would that benefit the article? The glaring, outstanding issue is the deficient licensing for the images. I've contacted LFCHistory to verify their status, etc but so far no response. Blue boxes are not going to appeal to everyone ;-). SoLando (Talk) 19:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

The second paragraph of the lead has a jarring chronology. It implies that his Liverpool career occurred before the Second World War.
Liddell was the first of six children to be conceived during the marriage of his parents - This suggests that either he had other siblings, born out of wedlock, or his mother suffered one or more miscarriages. Assuming this is not the case, it is tidier simply to state that "Liddell was the eldest of six children" or somesuch.
while he continued to play football and eventually earn selection for Scotland Schoolboys. - A mixture of tenses here.
It seems odd to pay so much attention to a close-season tour in 1948. This seems particularly undue weighting when compared to the coverage of the seasons either side of it.
There is perhaps an over-reliance on Keith's biography. While not necessarily a problem in itself, variety in sourcing is always helpful. I recently encountered this issue myself when expanding an article on one of Liddle's contemporaries, Bert Trautmann. While it was easy to resort to a particular biography for a large number of references, it had to be borne in mind that reviews of the book suggested it was over-sympathetic to Trautmann. Biographies are often written by admirers of the subject, so this is a common issue, and care must be taken to avoid turning an article into a eulogy.
Speaking of Trautmann, I can offer a couple more sources on the 1956 FA Cup tie. I'll put something on the talk page.
Were there any particular weaknesses in Liddell's game?
Shankly selected Liddell for a game against Derby County in February which the referee abandoned because of fog. He officially returned against Plymouth - "Officially" seems misplaced here. Abandoned matches might be struck from the records but they aren't unofficial, merely incomplete.
Why does the quote box have a blue background?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed?
I might have written that when initially perturbed by his mother's...unusual name.
Addressed.
True. But in its defence, it's a moderately interesting deviation from the competitive football which may intrigue readers from a certain continent...;-). I'll see if I can trim or expand some of the other seasons.
That has been a concern. I have striven to avoid becoming "influenced" by what is indeed a nostalgic, effusive book. The article's prose definitely presents fact and "action", and to a degree what others thought, rather than what John Keith considers him to be. Certainly, the tone, I hope, does not appear reverent.
I'd really welcome that. In fact, if you have any sourced material about Liddell, it would be so appreciated.
Whether it's related to the aforementioned effusiveness, weaknesses do not appear to enjoy any coverage in John Keith's bio or, indeed, elsewhere. That's been a factor in why I've avoided a style of play section, as the imbalance would be explicit. Without reliable sources, the article is as balanced as verifiability permits. Even when his contemporaries profiled him, they limited themselves to describing his attributes.
Perhaps "formal"...or: Liddell completed his first full match since recovery against Plymouth Argyle.....that seems awkward. Suggestion?
That's a format I've picked up from an article many moons ago. It's appeal does vary. I'll convert it to the, uh, quote box.

Your comments have been very helpful. I hope they've been implemented to your satisfaction (that's an unnecessarily formal response).SoLando (Talk) 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look in my books and put what I have on the talk page. I'll leave to you as to what, if anything, is used. Its always worth searching for material on Google Books, which looks like it might have a couple of worthwhile snippets, and Google News Archive Search can sometimes turn up things missed in general web searches.
On the abandoned game, how about "He completed the next match, against Plymouth Argyle, and played in ten successive matches"? Oldelpaso (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent. Barnes' account could be included and contrasted with one by Liddell. It might be disproportionate, however. What do you think?
Most of the sources yielded when I extensively searched GB and GNA during the initial expansion are those which are used in the article. Unfortunately, I don't have access to highbeam, findarticle, etc. I'll see if the volume of Keith notes can be curtailed by using the various obits.
Endorsed :-) SoLando (Talk) 20:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- What makes http://www.lfchistory.net/index.asp a reliable source?
- Might be nice if the footnotes were in two columns.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)