Talk:Gary Smith (footballer, born 1968)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 18:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I will have to fail this article based on sourcing (criteria 2a and 2b): Many of the sources given do not support the facts stated in the article. This is not to say that they are wrong, but they are not verifiable. I have only briefly considered the other criteria; there were one or two minor prose issues, but I stopped reading after the first section of "Coaching career" as there were so many sourcing issues. There have now been several GA nominations with these issues by the same nominator. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Smith retired as a professional player, with his career blighted through numerous injuries": I counted one reliably referenced injury.
Ref 7 to Chairboys is dead: it just links to an advert.
What makes "Barnet Fan Club of Norway" reliable?
"It was to be Smith's most successful spell during his playing days, scoring four goals in 66 Conference National games over two seasons.[7] However, towards the end of his time at the club, he suffered a number of injuries, including a compound fracture that Smith would never fully recover from": Source states that the injury occurred at Barnet. It also is a stretch to state from the source that the injury ended his career.
"After spending a season at Welling United, Smith returned to the Football League in 1993, signing for Barnet, spending two seasons with the club, with Smith suffering similar injury problems": Repetition of Smith; 1993 not supported in the sources; also similar to what other problems?
"during the 1995–96 campaign": Not supported by the ref.
"making his debut in 1–0 away defeat to Dulwich Hamlet on the opening day of the season": The ref supports his playing this game, but not that it was his debut or that it was the opening day of the season. Better supported by previous ref?
"making his final appearance for the club in a 3–1 victory against Heybridge Swifts in April 1997": Obviously not a league game. Any indication of what sort of fixture it was?
"injuries forced him into a premature retirement" Again, the source does not explicitly say so.
Overuse of "campaign" in this section.
"Smith began his coaching career with Wimbledon at the age of 28, gaining his UEFA 'A' licence coaching badge two years later": Age when he began coaching, and date of his badge not supported by ref.
"After Wimbledon's relocation to Milton Keynes, manager Tony Adams offered Smith the chance to take up the role of youth team coach at Wycombe Wanderers in 2004, where he would later become assistant first team coach": Not supported by ref: Wimbledon's relocation (I could accept that the fact of their relocation does not need a ref, but not the linking of the relocation with his new job), Adams offering Smith the role.
"and the club were unbeaten under their guidance": The ref goes to current results. If the 2004/5 season is selected, there is no indication of which results are relevant to the Ryan/Smith leadership.
"Smith reverted to his previous role of youth team coach when Wycombe appointed manager John Gorman on 30 November 2004": No mention of Smith in the ref.
"formally taking the position on 24 June 2005": Not supported in the ref.
"In July 2005, after just a month as assistant academy manager, Smith was appointed as reserve team coach for Watford.[5][16][17]": The fact, but not the date, is cited in the first ref. What purpose do the other two refs serve?
Close paraphrasing:
- Source: "Smith's dual remit means he will be in charge of Reserve team matchdays and also act as the Academy Under-18 team manager"
- Article: It was announced that Smith would take control of the reserve side on matchdays, as well as act as the Academy U18 team manager, thus taking on dual responsibilities"
"Smith later worked as a scout for Arsenal in 2007": Source merely says he was on the coaching staff. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
A few minor issues but would require more careful checking once sourcing is sorted.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Serious issues here. Citations do not support the article. "Barnet fan club of Norway" does not seem to be a RS; one or two others may be questionable. I cannot be certain that the article contains OR, but it certainly appears that way given the lack of accurate references.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No obvious problems from a first reading.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
One image, appears fine.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]