Talk:Stuart Parnaby/GA1

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

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 08:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll be reviewing this nomination in the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 08:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• "...but struggled with injuries before being leaving two years later." → remove "being"
  • Removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "...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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• "...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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• "He was the first-choice right-back..." → add bolded word
  • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "...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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]

These sections look good to me.

• "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)[reply]
• "...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)[reply]
• "...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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "...resides in the United States." → add bolded word.
  • Added. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'll place the nomination on hold for now, no rush with the changes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Great! Thanks again for the thorough review. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]