The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:29, 27 June 2011 [1].

Bryan Gunn[edit]

Bryan Gunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominators: User:Dweller, User:The Rambling Man

I'd like to nominate Bryan Gunn to become a Featured Article - joint nomination with User:The Rambling Man.

It's been something of a labour of love - I don't think many of my collaborations with TRM have taken this long to come to fruition. I hope that not only will you review the article, but you'll enjoy his story: the biography of an unusually human footballer, notable as a player, a coach and as a fundraiser.

The article has had third-party copyedit from someone who professes no knowledge of football, which was unexpectedly fruitful. I had no idea that the word "save" was football jargon, a lacuna that prompted a whole new list article to come into fruition.

All comments and criticisms welcomed and will be responded to positively. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NB the redirect checker is giving me one hit ([2]) but I can't seem to find the problem in the article - it could be that the current toolserver problems are affecting it. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wot r u on about? That's a list of pages that redirect to Bryan Gunn... Nothing to worry about here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(e/c)The tools aren't showing any redirects for me, but they do show one dead link - this. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done (Nikkimaria)

Thanks. I've removed two of them, as I was unwilling to add credence to incorrect information. The third was already sourced. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but it needs to be "properly" sourced - ie. with accessdate, publisher, title etc
Ah, gotcha. TRM? Care to handle this? --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can give it a go.... it's something that's a problem with Wikimedia software, but I seem to recall a "fudge" for it. We shouldn't really be judged on the bug, but I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
YEAH, done it. First time too. Thank goodness for WP:REFNOTE. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. I'll get rid of it. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even for a not contentious factual issue about the subject, on a page written by the subject? --Dweller (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would argue yes, but that's an opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's fine. I replaced it anyway. I'm keen to get this as polished as possible. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done first of them. The last of them is Fish's official site. I think for the type of claim it's sourcing, it's sufficient quality. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done the second and third, too, (ie all of them) now. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I noticed that too, but it seems to be an original article in two parts. Either they made a mistake, or it has two authors. Either way, I can't do much about it. It remains a reliable (and entertaining) source. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned above, I've deleted the section. --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'll get my teeth into that lot. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OpposeComment: (Brianboulton) with regret, on prose. The article looks comprehensive and has been written with an obvious enthusiasm for the subject, but at present the prose is well below FA standards. Part of the problem is that the article appears to have had no formal review before its nomination here. This means that some rather obvious glitches are in place, e.g the repetition of material at the end of the "Aberdeen" and beginning of the "Norwich" sections. FAC is generally not the best place for a first review. The following specific points relate only to the lead; I fear there is more of the same in the body of the text:-

The article looks in need of a full copyedit and, ideally, a peer review, as I doubt it can be put right within the normal timeframe of a FAC. But if you think it can be done I'll be happy to look again and reconsider the oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review. As mentioned above, it had a thorough third-party copyedit, by someone who knows nothing about football before it came here, but copyeditors are not infallible (I've got the T-shirt). A quick scan of your comments shows much merit - I'm only too happy to improve the article and should be able to work up all issues pretty swiftly. Please do keep an eye on this page. Thanks again. --Dweller (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I've dealt with all of Brian's comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My prose concerns from the lead have been properly addressed. I see, too, that a full copyedit is being or has been carried out. So I have struck my oppose. How far the ce has gone I don't know, but can I suggest that Casliber or someone else looks at the rather large number of paragraphs that begin "Gunn..." - four in succession in the "Aberdeen" section, and quite a few further down. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at this, Brian, and felt that there was no way to adjust this without creating convoluted difficult-to-parse sentences, which would not be an improvement. So I made no changes. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a bash at it and hopefully addressed it. --Dweller (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'll ponder on that. Finding RS description of his strengths/weaknesses will be difficult - they tend to either be match-by-match comments, which have no perspective, or hagiographical by Norwich City-related sources. On your other point, I was trying to avoid being over-lengthy, summary-style but I can easily fill some of the gaps. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK... Gunn was at Norwich as a player from 1986 to 1998. we have at least something to say in the Norwich section about the following seasons: 1986-7, 87-88, 88-89, 91-92, 92-93, 95-96, 89-90, 94-95, 97-98. It jumps around somewhat, because the material is arranged thematically: settling in, highs and lows, controversy, importance to the team. Each little bit is too small to deserve its own header. It may be less intuitive than a chronological ride through his career, but it's more interesting and suits summary style better. I think it's defensible in terms of comprehensiveness (which is where I think you were coming from). --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See below, on Gunn's playing style, now addressed in the article in a NPOV manner. --Dweller (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NB The article is now kindly being copyedited by User:Casliber --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We could maybe do a playing style section, but as I said above, it's impossible to find stuff that's both objective and broader than a one-game view. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay, if there is inusfficient, Norwich section is best spot then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found some RS comments from two of his former managers and incorporated them into a newly rejigged playing style section. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments (Giants2008) – Not sure if the copy-editing is done yet or not, but may as well provide some things to consider...


Will whomever is adding templates please remove them, and will the nominators please clean up the FAC to conform with FAC instructions-- we don't use templates here because they affect archives. Someone has entered "fixed" templates on each line, interrupting the reviewer commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, SandyGeorgia. I didn't know this was not allowed. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, thanks for the work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the After football section comprehensive? Looks too short. TGilmour (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's only been working outside football since late 2009, and I'm fairly certain that the only media coverage since then is of the "Former Norwich goalkeeper does X" variety. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Support OK, then I support. TGilmour (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. There are stats in his infobox. More detailed stats than that (ie appearances per season) are arguably notable, but do not seem to be available in any RS. His career predated soccerbase's details, sadly. I've taken a look at the template. I think it's ugly and unnecessarily takes up vast amounts of space, but I'll ask WP:FOOTY if there is consensus that it must be used in a high quality football article. Finally, I'm not aware of the need to note the BrEng, but happy to. --Dweller (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I should disclose that I was made aware of this discussion from a posting at WT:FOOTY). I agree with Dweller's view on not using Template:Sport honours. Even if that layout is desirable, wikicode to achieve the same layout would be far simpler. I also agree that ((British English)) is unnecessary. It (and it's American/Canadian/Australian/other equivalents) only need to be applied where there is a proven need for clarification, for instance at Talk:Orange (colour). It should be easy for 98% of readers to understand that American person = American English, British person = British English. There's no need to play into the lap of a fraction of the other 2%. —WFC— 12:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And there's pretty clearly no consensus to use that template --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do we lose by indicating that this article is written in British English? On the contrary, we're making it more clear so don't hesitate and put that template on the talk page, then I'll support. TGilmour (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template is currently being considered for deletion, isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<-TGilmour, I posted on the talkpage re BrEng, as requested a few days ago. The template for honours is the one under deletion consideration - there's no consensus it needs to be used and using it would detract from, not improve this article. --Dweller (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review: Of the four images, three check out as fine for PD, but there's a problem on the fourth. For File:Alex Ferguson.jpg, it says it's CC-BY and was approved as such, but the image on flickr has it as CC-BY-NC-ND. Either it was wrongly approved or the uploader since changed their mind on it. Adding a better description for File:Marshall, Andy.jpg would be helpful, but since it's an old pic from a long gone user it's not required. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't it the case that it's tough luck if it was reviewed by an admin at the time (2007) and someone changes their mind afterwards? Presumably it's difficult to get evidence to see what the licensing in 2007 was? Also, is it really the remit of FAC to revisit historic admin's decisions on Flickr uploads and on uploader's image descriptions? Just a question really because if it is, I'll need to ensure that I look into this further for FLC etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty sure that if at one point the license was changed to a free one for us, it cannot be changed back, so if they did then we still go by the approved one. I just wanted to make sure that the review was correct, which I'm sure it was. In short, the image seems to be fine even though that doesn't quite check out. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that's cool, just wanted to check. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thank you for the image review. --Dweller (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status I make it three supports now (Oldelpaso, Casliber and TGilmour) and no outstanding opposes, or comments to address. If I'm missing some outstanding points, please let me know. --Dweller (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did wonder if the various edits had done enough to satisfy Nikkimaria on the concerns over consistent citation formatting, despite the fact our de facto templates produce different results? I'm happy to work endlessly to ensure these are correct, as long as there's an acceptance that Wikipedia's own citation templates contradict one another. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll ask Nikkimaria to come back. --Dweller (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One minor issue remaining here (see above), everything else looks great. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Replied above. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - Ok, meets the criteria, support. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - following the discussion and responses relating to my comments (see below). Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments (from Carcharoth) - only a few comments:

Overall, a very readable article, one that I'd be happy to support after a second read-through later (though the review may close before then, I'll try and get back here before then) and if the substantive concerns above are addressed. I do have slight concerns about comprehensiveness, given the ease with which I found some missing bits. Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More