Talk:Geoff Smith (footballer, born 1928)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A really nice little article which reads very well. A few minor nitpicks, no major problems.

Lead

"Smith was born in Cottingley, Bradford, moved to nearby Keighley with his family and also served in Malaya in the British Army at the end of his teens." Don't think "also" is needed; maybe change to "before serving" but "and" works perfectly well.

Agreed. Gone with "before serving". Brad78 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

A bit sparse; any info on parents or schooling? Any reason for the move to Keighley? Not a problem if none of this is known.

Afraid not. As I'll probably say in other answers, I've exhausted the obvious, known sources. Brad78 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably he was conscripted into the army, it may be worth making this explicit.

I presume so too. But it's not explicit in the source, so I've left it out rather than guess incorrectly. Brad78 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"He had a brother Jack" is a bit abrupt. Maybe join to previous sentence.

I understand what you're saying though but joined onto following sentence as that's more relevant to Jack. Brad78 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur career

"A goalkeeper, he was still playing for Keighley Central in 1948, when he was offered a trial with his local Football League side Bradford City, who were at the time in the Third Division North." Comma before when unnecessary.

Indeed. Removed. Brad78 (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did his brother travel to Nelson?

Clarified. Brad78 (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section title is a little confusing. I assumed he played as an amateur, but if that were so, why were there problems over his pay as amateurs were supposedly not paid. Does amateur refer to the clubs?

Very good question. I genuinely don't know the answer. He says, "but they couldn't afford to pay me". I'm not sure if he was amateur, semi-pro or whether it was travel expenses. I guess the latter. But I'm guessing, so will rename the section. Brad78 (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford City

Why did Smith replace McManus? Similarly, why did he replace Gooch in the next season?

Found a quote about McManus, but don't know why he replaced Gooch. But added some info about why Gooch replaced him. Brad78 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition of part-time in the same sentence.

Not sure there's a better time for part-time so changed sentence structure to split. Brad78 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to link pounds and shillings?

Partly for reason below of clean sheet, for those unaware of the currency terms. I'll remove if you want? Brad78 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can assume that most people reading it will be aware of the terms at least generally and not really interested enough to follow the link. I'd unlink personally. Not a pass or fail matter though. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Job looking after the ground: was he a groundsman?

Source doesn't say. I'd guess not, but gone with what source explicitly says. Brad78 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, although clean sheet is linked, I might spell out what it meant for the casual reader. But, just my opinion, feel free to ignore. (I like sports articles to be as accessible as possible. I know not everyone agrees :)

I'm not sure it's all possible. I can't see where I can do so while keeping the prose flow properly. Brad78 (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another probably unanswerable question, why did McCusker replace him?

Yep. Absolutely no idea. The main two sources don't even say it was McCusker. Brad78 (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"When Smith retired, the club granted him and Mulholland each a benefit sum of money rather than the proceeds of a special match." Not sure about "benefit sum of money": what about "a sum of money instead of a benefit match" and link benefit (if it is such a game you are talking about).

Done. Brad78 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the relevance of Smith's comments about Powell.

I actually can't remember why I decided to put it in. I think I thought it proved what sort of manager Powell was and said something about the club at the time. I'll remove it if you feel it best. Brad78 (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General

Reference for stats at end of article?

Added reference within the table for those stats known. Brad78 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the questions over selection go, if there is a record of the games he played, maybe the scores in games before his recall and dropping may be beneficial, but please don't feel you have to add lots of scores.

Added some without going overboard. Brad78 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only two things missing are a judgement of his ability such as comments on his retirement or opinions on how good he was, which may not exist, and a description of his playing style which may also not exist! If they do, they would make the article even better. There may be bits in newspaper reports. Or maybe not. I know writing about people from so long ago can be frustrating!

Without delving into newspaper or library archives, I can't see anything specific, other than the word "consistency"! Brad78 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata, dablinks, external links all fine.
Refs look fine and online ones check out OK.
I might add a bibliography rather than giving publisher info, etc in the references. But just my preference and all info is there.

Done. I hope! Brad78 (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No major problems, and anything that can't be addressed above will not prevent the article passing. I'll pass when the points above are addressed. I'll put it on hold for a week in the meantime. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed everything. I've left a couple of questions above but think most things have been changed or answered. Thanks very much for the review. Brad78 (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no probs, I'll pass when the one (or two if you prefer!) remaining points are done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the two pieces as you suggested. All done now. Thanks again for the review. Brad78 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]