There's a limited use of jargon, for example: "where he played in one pre-season friendly away at York City." Also the term 'cap' - vernacular terms should be explained (or wikilinked) first use.
Overall, the breadth of refs is strong. However, the first ref is a dead link and couldn't get the second one to open - which IS an issue since most of article rests on those. There's plenty of RS on topic (Found articles at CTV and The Province with a quick search), especially since subject was released this month, so this needs to be addressed
On hold
(b) (citations to reliable sources)
Arguably the most controversial statement in the article - about subject's appreciation for Thierry Henry - is from the broken link. Easily fixed.
Pass
(c) (original research)
Meets criteria.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
Subject was released from his contract, this should be in article. Meets criteria.
On hold
(b) (focused)
Done well.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
Meets criteria.
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
Changes seem to be all on improving/updating.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
Fix the holds and article passes - though would like to see links to football terms, or in-narrative description on first use (something as simple as "friendly game" clarifies things.) Otherwise, really good job. EBY (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit redundant, now, Struway: I've completed the tasks I saw above. I should note that Haber has not been released by Stevenage, he has been transfer-listed - and that information was already in the article. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)12:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be aware that WP:GAN/I requires the reviewer to notify the nominator when they put the review on hold. I imagine the reviewer forgot, so I did it for them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, cheers EBY for reviewing the article. I see Lukeno94 has already made the neccessary changes (thanks), although I have just made a couple of other very small changes. And thank you Struway for the heads up, I hadn't noticed it had been placed on hold, so much appreciated for letting me know. Cheers. SBFCEdit (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's NOT a requirement, Struway, though I appreciate you passing the word (though not the BITEy-ness). Thanks, Luke +, for all the good edits. The release was premature - it's a possible transfer? Ah. In any event, yes - the article passes criteria. EBY (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pass
On hold