Talk:Don Revie

Don Revie 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.
Review: May 25, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Don Revie appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 June 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Don Revie changed the playing strip of Leeds United from blue and yellow to all-white, to mimic Real Madrid?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Don Revie.

Wikipedia

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Forward (association football)#Second striker|deep-lying centre forward]] The anchor (#Second striker) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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).

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

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Don Revie 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.

Inconsistencies in dates

This article twice states that Revie died in 1999 and twice that he died in 1989. Could someone sort that out? 143.210.72.185 (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsatisfactory

This article is very poor.--andreasegde (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you think the faults / shortcomings in the article are? Merely saying it is poor does not help anyone. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian [1] refers to the fact that the "match-fixing" allegations have been airbrushed from his Wikipedia entry. Needs to be re-included, I've definitely seen it in here before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.210.104 (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The allegations were in fact included on here for some years, a fact Greenslade dosen't appear aware of. Despite being well sourced, I assume they were removed by Leeds fans who'd rather these allegations were not known about (the same occurs with the biographies of Billy Bremner and Liverpool players Tommy Smith and Bruce Grobbelaar regarding sourced allegations of racism, the material is usually removed by fans of the clubs concerned who perhaps don't want these things known about their idols). I've nothing against Revie or Leeds but the fact is that a major Sunday newspaper made an extraordinary series of allegations about Revie (over which he did not take legal action) and that similar allegations have been made over the years since by a string of prominent and respectable football personalities. Greenslade is right, to not mention this at all in the article is ludicrous. It makes the article a hagiography. However it has to be balanced and it should be pointed out that none of the allegations were proven nor did Revie himself face any criminal action over them. But not to mention the controversy at all is ridiculous. I notice that the stuff about Leeds being accused of gamesmanship, the criticisms of Brian Clough and the Admiral sportswear controversy were removed as well, all of which are plainly notable and should not have been removed, but the statement that "in later years, Revie's reputation began to recover" has been left in, now with almost no explanation as to why his reputation suffered in the first place! Obviously someone objected to anything remotely negative about Revie being included and that isn't acceptable, the article ought to be balanced and should neither be hagiography nor an overly negative portrayal. 92.8.1.57 (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it was removed on Christmas Eve last year by an unregistered user. He went to work a few hours after someone else had vandalised the article, but he removed paragraphs of stuff, all of which could be seen as showing Revie in a bad light but not all of it controversial, some of it was just criticism of Revie's management of England by Franz Beckenbauer for instance. Obviously a Leeds fan who thinks this page should be a hagiography to Revie, I'm surprised he didn't go as far as removing any references to Revie's period as England manager at all.

I'll put the stuff about the match-fixing allegations back in and try and make it as balanced as possible, clearly it should be there and when a major UK newspaper is claiming someones Wiki biography is a whitewash it's worth taking notice, but doubtless there will be some objection at some point. 92.8.1.57 (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Is it REE-vee or REV-ee? Spiderone (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've heard both so I wasn't sure. Spiderone (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some classic Clough / Revie banter if you'd like to confirm. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral Attendees

Kevin Keegan never played for Leeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.142.161 (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Membership of Freemasonry

I added a section referring to the fact that Don Revie was a Freemason, with his lodge name and date of initiation. It includes a citation. The text was deleted and I have restored it. If anyone thinks they have a valid reason for removing or amending this, please discuss here to reach consensus in line with Wikipedia policy. Thank you.Lord Mauleverer (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for adding it because I had no idea Revie was a Freemason and was interested to hear about it. I don't know if it needs its own section but certainly the information should stay, I imagine it's a little-known fact about him. 92.9.102.105 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.117.24.194 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NB

Roy Greenslade has a criticism. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See 'Unsatisfactory' above 92.8.1.57 (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, will copyedit as I go and post queries below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His mother died when he was 12 - very short sentence - do we have a cause or something to add to it to make it a bit longer?

..the "Foxes" fared poorly... - why quotes?

...He chose to join the "Tigers" ahead of bigger clubs..ditto

~~The "Citizens" struggled~~ ~~- ditto~~

~~Similarly to the end of his time at Leicester,~~ ~~- ungainly, why not just, "As at Leicester,.."?~~

~~did not appreciate talented players like Revie and preferred to play a physical style of play~~ ~~- hmm, comes over as a bit POVish....can it be worded more neutrally?~~

~~no big egos at the club~~ ~~- now that's something I would put in quotes (the words "big egos", if they were his exact words)~~

~~In one of Jones's first appearances at Leeds they recorded a 7–0 victory over Chelsea, though ironically Jones was not on the score-sheet.~~ ~~- try to remove one "Jones"~~

Colin Todd stated that Revie was ill-suited to international managements, with his strengths lying in the day-to-day contact found only in club management rather than the politics and committee meetings of international management ~~- try to remove on "international management"~~

Ok - @EchetusXe: - all done reading now. A nice read overall and not too much to fix. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, dealt with all that. Thanks!--Echetus Xe 10:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- good work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Don Revie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422082302/http://www.eofftv.com/t/thi/this_is_your_life_1969_main.htm to http://www.eofftv.com/t/thi/this_is_your_life_1969_main.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]