Talk:Stuart Parnaby/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 08:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'll be reviewing this nomination in the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 08:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]- I'll leave this up to you, but I don't know if being an unused substitute in the League Cup final is important enough to be in the lead - to me, it just seems like him not playing in a game is considered a highlight of his career.
- For a player who'd won multiple trophies in their career, I'd agree, but considering this is the only competition Parnaby won in his career I think it's worthy of inclusion. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "...but struggled with injuries before being leaving two years later." → remove "being"
- Removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Club career
[edit]Middlesbrough
[edit]- "Parnaby did not feature in the 2001–02 season, due to long-lasting injuries." → remove the comma; also specifying the type of injury would be a good detail.
- Comma removed and added detail about the injury. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "long-lasting injuries" is also used two sentences later; I'd remove "long-lasting" to cut down on the repetitiveness.
- Removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- The following paragraph also is a touch repetitive; "Following his debut against Leeds..." could probably be cut to "Following his debut" or "Following this debut" since Leeds is mentioned in the previous sentence as their opponent.
- Removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Despite this return" feels out of place; the sentence before doesn't say anything about a return (actually the opposite).
- Removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Specific injury details in the first paragraph of the 2003–2007 section, specifically about the 2003–04 season.
- Expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "...as well as the arrival of Danny Mills." → Did Mills replace him in the lineup? I'd specify this.
- Expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "In the 2004–05 season, he played in over half Middlesbrough's Premier League matches until it was disrupted..." → what does "it" refer to here?
- Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "...and was sidelined for three or weeks." → There's either a word missing here or an extra word.
- Expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "He made his return to on 26 March against Bolton..." → There's a word missing between "to" and "on".
- Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "He was the first-choice right-back..." → add bolded word
- Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Birmingham City
[edit]- "...and so he was unable to dislodge Stephen Kelly from the right-back spot." → A word or two missing; I've added my suggestions in bold.
- Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "However, Parnaby's injuries overshadowed his season, including missing the rest of the season." → Reword to avoid repetition (emphasis is mine).
- Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'd make some mention that Birmingham was relegated in 2007-08, so that their promotion back to the Premier League in 2008-09 makes more sense to the reader.
- Expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Following the Birmingham's relegation at the end of the 2010–11 season" → remove bolded word
- Removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Return to Middlesbrough/Hartlepool United
[edit]These sections look good to me.
International career
[edit]- "on 23 June 1998 when starting their 4–1 defeat to the United States" → doesn't really make sense.
- Is it the 'starting' part that doesn't make sense? It means that he participated in the match from the start. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "...to the United States (US), as part of the tour of US." → A touch repetitive; I'd remove "(US)" and record "as part of the tour of the US" to read "as part of the tour of the country".
- Reworded. I've kept "(US)" as I've abbreviated United States to US later in the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "...as they were eliminated by the Czech Republic..." → makes more sense as something like "before they were eliminated..."
- Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Personal life
[edit]- "In late 2013, Parnaby and his wife were expecting their first child. However, the baby died." → Needs sourcing
- Referenced. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Did the baby die before or after birth? The current phrasing "were expecting" implies the baby was lost before birth.
- Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "...resides in the United States." → add bolded word.
- Added. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Overall comments
[edit]One question I have is about the formatting of scores where Parnaby's team lost; I'm much more familiar with another variety of football, where the Wikipedia convention would be to say "lost 14–21" rather than "lost 21–14". I'm not sure if soccer has a similar convention but the following scores would need to be changed if there was one:
- "1–0 home loss against Manchester United"
- "2–0 home loss to Blackburn"
- "3–2 away loss against Chelsea"
- "2–1 home loss against Leicester City"
- "1–0 away loss to Stevenage"
- "4–1 defeat to the United States"
- "3–0 defeat to France"
- "2–0 defeat to Portugal"
- In my experience, it's standard for the larger figure to be presented first in a scoreline in English football, regardless of whether the result was a win or a loss for the player's team. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I'll place the nomination on hold for now, no rush with the changes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @PCN02WPS: Thanks for the review, I've attempted to address your comments, and credit to @Robby.is.on: who kindly made some fixes. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- From what I can see the article looks good! I appreciate your clarification on the score formatting and the lead. I'm not sure what tripped me up so much about "when starting their 4-1 defeat" - upon rereading it, that sentence was totally clear. Earwig looks totally fine, the references I checked look good, the images are relevant and their licensing is good, and the article is very well-written. All of my concerns have been addressed so I'm happy to
pass this! Well done! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- @PCN02WPS: Great! Thanks again for the thorough review. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- From what I can see the article looks good! I appreciate your clarification on the score formatting and the lead. I'm not sure what tripped me up so much about "when starting their 4-1 defeat" - upon rereading it, that sentence was totally clear. Earwig looks totally fine, the references I checked look good, the images are relevant and their licensing is good, and the article is very well-written. All of my concerns have been addressed so I'm happy to