Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bryan Gunn/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:29, 27 June 2011 [1].

---

Bryan Gunn

Bryan Gunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Bryan Gunn/archive1

Nominators: User:Dweller, User:The Rambling Man

I'd like to nominate Bryan Gunn to become a Featured Article - joint nomination with User:The Rambling Man.

It's been something of a labour of love - I don't think many of my collaborations with TRM have taken this long to come to fruition. I hope that not only will you review the article, but you'll enjoy his story: the biography of an unusually human footballer, notable as a player, a coach and as a fundraiser.

The article has had third-party copyedit from someone who professes no knowledge of football, which was unexpectedly fruitful. I had no idea that the word "save" was football jargon, a lacuna that prompted a whole new list article to come into fruition.

All comments and criticisms welcomed and will be responded to positively. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

NB the redirect checker is giving me one hit ([2]) but I can't seem to find the problem in the article - it could be that the current toolserver problems are affecting it. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wot r u on about? That's a list of pages that redirect to Bryan Gunn... Nothing to worry about here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)The tools aren't showing any redirects for me, but they do show one dead link - this. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done (Nikkimaria)

• Explanatory notes are part of the article and should be properly sourced

Thanks. I've removed two of them, as I was unwilling to add credence to incorrect information. The third was already sourced. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it needs to be "properly" sourced - ie. with accessdate, publisher, title etc

Ah, gotcha. TRM? Care to handle this? --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I can give it a go.... it's something that's a problem with Wikimedia software, but I seem to recall a "fudge" for it. We shouldn't really be judged on the bug, but I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

YEAH, done it. First time too. Thank goodness for WP:REFNOTE. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Other sources" is a confusing section - you have citations to one of them but not the other, so they shouldn't be in the same section, and "Other sources" is not a very descriptive title

Good point. I'll get rid of it. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Check formatting on citations to In Where It Hurts
  • Can you tell me what you believe to be incorrect about it please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I've spotted some that have inconsistent use of italics. Fixing. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Should all be done now, thank you. --Dweller (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Still see some minor inconsistencies - whether or not there's a space after "p.", whether there's a period after "pp", italicization (ref 26), dashes in page ranges (ref 45). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I'll re-review. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I think I've done this now. I've used the same spacing method in the non-"cite book" templates as the spacing produced by the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• LinkedIn is a very questionable source for an article at this level

Even for a not contentious factual issue about the subject, on a page written by the subject? --Dweller (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue yes, but that's an opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's fine. I replaced it anyway. I'm keen to get this as polished as possible. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This?

Done first of them. The last of them is Fish's official site. I think for the type of claim it's sourcing, it's sufficient quality. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Done the second and third, too, (ie all of them) now. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• This seems to have two different authors - why? Same issue with this - were these originally published elsewhere? If so, what is the original source?

Yes, I noticed that too, but it seems to be an original article in two parts. Either they made a mistake, or it has two authors. Either way, I can't do much about it. It remains a reliable (and entertaining) source. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Overall, referencing format needs editing for consistency
  • Can you point at the specific refs please, I believe they all use {{cite web}}... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • For example, whether you include locations and/or publishers for newspapers, some newspapers are not italicized, some website names are italicized and others are not, what is wikilinked when, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, well I only generally include locations if the paper name is ambiguous and will generally continue in that method. As for the other points, I'll get onto them now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Right, well I had a go at this. If there are any remaining issues, please could you specify which refs you have issues with because I'm now unable to see the wood for the trees. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay. Compare the location formatting on ref 13 versus 20 and 21, same issue on several other refs. Compare publisher formatting of 31 vs 33. Missing italics on ref 44 and 98. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Hi, Nikkimaria. The differences come from using a "cite web" or "cite news" template. I have changed all cites with a location to the "cite news" template so all the locations are now in brackets. Missing italics on 44 and 98 have been corrected: #98 no longer goes to that cite as it was a dupicate from earlier in the article and is now grouped up. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Better, just 31 vs 33 still an issue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
              • I believe they are now formatted identically. Is that your view? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
                • Yes, perfect, done! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
                  • Well thank you very much for your patience and diligence, both are very much appreciated! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 39: publisher?
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 83: retrieval date?
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Other sources should use the same format as References. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I've deleted the section. --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get my teeth into that lot. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• All issues responded to or done now, many thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OpposeComment: (Brianboulton) with regret, on prose. The article looks comprehensive and has been written with an obvious enthusiasm for the subject, but at present the prose is well below FA standards. Part of the problem is that the article appears to have had no formal review before its nomination here. This means that some rather obvious glitches are in place, e.g the repetition of material at the end of the "Aberdeen" and beginning of the "Norwich" sections. FAC is generally not the best place for a first review. The following specific points relate only to the lead; I fear there is more of the same in the body of the text:-

• Overlong and overcomplicated sentence needs splitting: "After learning his trade with Aberdeen in the early 1980s, he spent most of his playing career at Norwich City, the club with which he came to be most closely associated, although he had a brief spell back in Scotland with Hibernian before retiring as a player in 1998."
• "In Gunn's opinion, the peak of his playing career was making what he regards as the save of his life in the UEFA Cup match against Bayern Munich that has been called the summit of Norwich City's history." As this was such a pivotal event, give it a year. Also: "that has been called" etc. By whom?
• "He won two Player of the Year awards with Norwich, one of just nine Norwich players to achieve a double and the only goalkeeper to do so." This is rather clumsy. I would suggest a rephrasing: "He was one of only nine Norwich players to win the club's Player of the Year award twice, and the only goalkeeper to do so."
• "In 2009, he was appointed..." Names rather than personal pronouns should be used for first mentions in each paragraph.
• "He also represented Scotland..." etc. The "also" is inappropriate, since this sentence has no relationship to the previous one.
• Avoid use of the emphatic "just", as in "just one week into the new season".
• "Following the death of his young daughter from leukaemia in 1992, Gunn has been..." The use of "has been" requires that "following" be replaced by "since".
• Another awkward sentence, with an element of ambiguity as expressed: "By 2011, he had raised more than £1 million for research on childhood leukaemia, primarily at Norwich's University of East Anglia, and on projects to improve the lives of children with leukaemia and their families, notably a national telephone support line." Needs rephrasing
• "In response to" should read "In recognition of"

The article looks in need of a full copyedit and, ideally, a peer review, as I doubt it can be put right within the normal timeframe of a FAC. But if you think it can be done I'll be happy to look again and reconsider the oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. As mentioned above, it had a thorough third-party copyedit, by someone who knows nothing about football before it came here, but copyeditors are not infallible (I've got the T-shirt). A quick scan of your comments shows much merit - I'm only too happy to improve the article and should be able to work up all issues pretty swiftly. Please do keep an eye on this page. Thanks again. --Dweller (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I've dealt with all of Brian's comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My prose concerns from the lead have been properly addressed. I see, too, that a full copyedit is being or has been carried out. So I have struck my oppose. How far the ce has gone I don't know, but can I suggest that Casliber or someone else looks at the rather large number of paragraphs that begin "Gunn..." - four in succession in the "Aberdeen" section, and quite a few further down. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this, Brian, and felt that there was no way to adjust this without creating convoluted difficult-to-parse sentences, which would not be an improvement. So I made no changes. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a bash at it and hopefully addressed it. --Dweller (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comment. Apologies for not looking at this earlier in the process. From the point of view of providing a biography readable by those without an interest in the sport, it does a very good job. But looking at it from my football-obsessed viewpoint I see a few gaps.
• I get little impression of what type of goalkeeper Gunn was. What were his strongest attributes other than faux-headbutting crossbars? Shot-stopping? Dealing with crosses? Organising his defence?
• After addressing notable cup performances, we whizz from a brawl in 1989 to relegation in 1994, and then we're immediately at the end of his Norwich career in 1998. Compared with the detail given about his few months in management this seems sparse. Norwich didn't have the best defensive record at the time, but to be the club's Player of The Year twice there must have been a few noteworthy performances not already mentioned, or peaks and troughs in form. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ponder on that. Finding RS description of his strengths/weaknesses will be difficult - they tend to either be match-by-match comments, which have no perspective, or hagiographical by Norwich City-related sources. On your other point, I was trying to avoid being over-lengthy, summary-style but I can easily fill some of the gaps. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

OK... Gunn was at Norwich as a player from 1986 to 1998. we have at least something to say in the Norwich section about the following seasons: 1986-7, 87-88, 88-89, 91-92, 92-93, 95-96, 89-90, 94-95, 97-98. It jumps around somewhat, because the material is arranged thematically: settling in, highs and lows, controversy, importance to the team. Each little bit is too small to deserve its own header. It may be less intuitive than a chronological ride through his career, but it's more interesting and suits summary style better. I think it's defensible in terms of comprehensiveness (which is where I think you were coming from). --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

See below, on Gunn's playing style, now addressed in the article in a NPOV manner. --Dweller (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

NB The article is now kindly being copyedited by User:Casliber --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments - just done a run-through and will look over again (but it is late here and I need to sleep). I was wondering whether para 3 of Family life, personal life and personality was better off in Norwich section, as it is more about his professional than personal life. I wonder whether there should be more in the Norwich section too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I think on prose grounds we are just over the line into FA territory. I can't see any outstanding issues prose or comprehensivenesswise now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

We could maybe do a playing style section, but as I said above, it's impossible to find stuff that's both objective and broader than a one-game view. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

okay, if there is inusfficient, Norwich section is best spot then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I found some RS comments from two of his former managers and incorporated them into a newly rejigged playing style section. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments (Giants2008) – Not sure if the copy-editing is done yet or not, but may as well provide some things to consider...

• I didn't notice the lead fact about Alex Ferguson writing the foreword for Gunn's book in the body. That should probably be moved into or repeated in the personal life section.
• Early life: "and winning medals in athletic events at highland games events." The use of "events" is a prose redundancy; another word for one of them is all that is needed to fix it.
• Watch for little words that could be POV concerns, like "Unfortunately" toward the end of the section.
• Aberdeen: You don't need to link the team name here; it was linked one sentence ago.
• Norwich City: Ton of repeated links from earlier sections. I see one of Carrow Road and two of Man U. This is something that needs checking in the rest of the article.
• Before "Enraged, the Norwich keeper retorted...", a space is missing after a cite.
• Hibernian: "but agreed a two-year contract in July 1998." Do British sources usually say something like this in the form of "agreed to a two-year contract"?, like American sources do? If so, I'd go with that.
• Another space needed after the second use of ref 47, following "On his doctors' advice,".
• Internationals: The first paragraph has three cites, which all go to the same reference. I see no reason why there needs to be more than one reference here. The information is all covered by the same reference, and none of it is that controversial. It's not like a brawl, where a stronger level of citation makes sense. Just having a cite at the end of the paragraph should be sufficient.
• Manager of Norwich City: "he received a 'a euphoric reception' from the fans. and Norwich beat Barnsley 4–0." One too many "a"s, and the period is faulty considering what follows.
• In "mostly of those on free transfers", is the first word supposed to be "most"? That's the only way that part makes sense to me.
• Reference 98 needs more formatting than just a bare link.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have done a bunch of these fixes. Copy edits are pretty complete. I am not going to do another pass as Casliber preceded me, so I suspect it is pretty completely done. Over-linking needs to be double checked and POV words need to be hunted down and removed. I did not fix the lead, either. --Ninja Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC) I think I have addressed Giants2008's list of concerns. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd done a couple of read-throughs and was pleased with how it was shaping up, and waiting back to see what others thought. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Will whomever is adding templates please remove them, and will the nominators please clean up the FAC to conform with FAC instructions-- we don't use templates here because they affect archives. Someone has entered "fixed" templates on each line, interrupting the reviewer commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, SandyGeorgia. I didn't know this was not allowed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the After football section comprehensive? Looks too short. TGilmour (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

He's only been working outside football since late 2009, and I'm fairly certain that the only media coverage since then is of the "Former Norwich goalkeeper does X" variety. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

*Support OK, then I support. TGilmour (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There are three issues refering to this arictle. First: This article lacks Career statistics section, which is essential in my opinion. Second: What about using Template:Sport honours in Honours section? Third: On the talk page, indicate that this article is written in British English. TGilmour (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There are stats in his infobox. More detailed stats than that (ie appearances per season) are arguably notable, but do not seem to be available in any RS. His career predated soccerbase's details, sadly. I've taken a look at the template. I think it's ugly and unnecessarily takes up vast amounts of space, but I'll ask WP:FOOTY if there is consensus that it must be used in a high quality football article. Finally, I'm not aware of the need to note the BrEng, but happy to. --Dweller (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(I should disclose that I was made aware of this discussion from a posting at WT:FOOTY). I agree with Dweller's view on not using Template:Sport honours. Even if that layout is desirable, wikicode to achieve the same layout would be far simpler. I also agree that {{British English}} is unnecessary. It (and it's American/Canadian/Australian/other equivalents) only need to be applied where there is a proven need for clarification, for instance at Talk:Orange (colour). It should be easy for 98% of readers to understand that American person = American English, British person = British English. There's no need to play into the lap of a fraction of the other 2%. —WFC— 12:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And there's pretty clearly no consensus to use that template --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What do we lose by indicating that this article is written in British English? On the contrary, we're making it more clear so don't hesitate and put that template on the talk page, then I'll support. TGilmour (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The template is currently being considered for deletion, isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

<-TGilmour, I posted on the talkpage re BrEng, as requested a few days ago. The template for honours is the one under deletion consideration - there's no consensus it needs to be used and using it would detract from, not improve this article. --Dweller (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - would he have won the 1983 European Super Cup? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  Probably not, as I doubt he'd have figured in the first XI and it's a one-off game, and no sign of it in the RS, but I'll double check his autobiography. --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  Gunn's a little bit bitter about that season. In his autobiog, he says he didn't play a part in that season, "not a single measly game". I think that puts a cap on it, but nice spot! --Dweller (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  But wouldn't he have been an unused sub? European matches always have a reserve 'keeper. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  Possibly, but the UEFA site doesn't include subs for that game, there's no mention of it in any Gunn-related source that I've seen. He mentions the title in his autobiog, but unlike the Gothenburg trophy when he was on the bench and won a medal, doesn't even mention being there). I'd guess he was on the bench for both games, didn't play and didn't get a medal, as he'd not participated in the 'tournament'. But that's OR and it'd be OR to add anything speculative about it to the article. NPOV alert: it's a rubbish 'competition' anyway! Thanks for trying. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  Cups have always given out medals to everyone in the matchday squad for the final, though, including the ESC. As there were only 2 keepers in Aberdeen's squad at the time, it's safe to assume he was there. There's even a reliable source [3] ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  That's definitely a reliable source, but is it the only one? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review: Of the four images, three check out as fine for PD, but there's a problem on the fourth. For File:Alex Ferguson.jpg, it says it's CC-BY and was approved as such, but the image on flickr has it as CC-BY-NC-ND. Either it was wrongly approved or the uploader since changed their mind on it. Adding a better description for File:Marshall, Andy.jpg would be helpful, but since it's an old pic from a long gone user it's not required. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that it's tough luck if it was reviewed by an admin at the time (2007) and someone changes their mind afterwards? Presumably it's difficult to get evidence to see what the licensing in 2007 was? Also, is it really the remit of FAC to revisit historic admin's decisions on Flickr uploads and on uploader's image descriptions? Just a question really because if it is, I'll need to ensure that I look into this further for FLC etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if at one point the license was changed to a free one for us, it cannot be changed back, so if they did then we still go by the approved one. I just wanted to make sure that the review was correct, which I'm sure it was. In short, the image seems to be fine even though that doesn't quite check out. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool, just wanted to check. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you for the image review. --Dweller (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Understood and I support. TGilmour (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, and thanks for the comments, too. --Dweller (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Status I make it three supports now (Oldelpaso, Casliber and TGilmour) and no outstanding opposes, or comments to address. If I'm missing some outstanding points, please let me know. --Dweller (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I did wonder if the various edits had done enough to satisfy Nikkimaria on the concerns over consistent citation formatting, despite the fact our de facto templates produce different results? I'm happy to work endlessly to ensure these are correct, as long as there's an acceptance that Wikipedia's own citation templates contradict one another. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask Nikkimaria to come back. --Dweller (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

One minor issue remaining here (see above), everything else looks great. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied above. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Pretty much there, but:
• Opening sentence "Bryan James Gunn (born 22 December 1963 in Thurso) is a Scottish former professional football manager [6 months?] and goalkeeper [20 years]." - my square brackets - doesn't get it right. Nor could I work out how long he actually was manager for - that section needs a few dates sprinkled around. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Happy to switch the order, as it works for chronology, too. I won't include the years there, as his backroom role at Norwich was lengthy and complex - too complex for the lead. I'll take another look at the manager section, too, as you suggest. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Support - Ok, meets the criteria, support. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Support - following the discussion and responses relating to my comments (see below). Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments (from Carcharoth) - only a few comments:

• There is a one-sentence paragraph that has poor grammar: "However, he was involved in an own-goal incident in an East Anglian Derby match in the 1995–96 season, when a backpass from Robert Ullathorne bounced awkwardly off the pitch and over of Gunn's attempted clearance kick." - the specific problem is with 'over of' - you can lose the 'of' and retain the meaning.
  • That should have been part of (balance to) the previous parag. Someone else seems to have done the "of" already, so all fixed now. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• I share the concerns that the 'After football' section is too short - can it not be merged with another section and broken out later if it expands? And is it correct to imply by 'after' that he has no plans to return to football?
  • Happy to take suggestions of where else it might go - there's nowhere that seems appropriate. I have no idea what his plans are. He's gone from football personality to mobile phones to sports agent. He may be back one day, but I'm not sure anyone, even Gunn, could be certain. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, on reflection, you are right. I've struck this one. Carcharoth (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• The 'Playing style, personality, achievements and legacy' section title is a bit long.
  • You're probably right. But I couldn't capture the various elements more succinctly. Suggestions welcome. --Dweller (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• Pictures: if there are no freely licensed pictures available of him playing as a goalkeeper, is it not possible to point the reader (through an external link) to a picture of him as a goalkeeper, or to say that his autobiography (presumably) contains such pictures?
  • Biog certainly does. How would one include such a comment? --Dweller (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I've changed my mind on this, as most readers would have the common sense to look for pictures in the autobiography. Even better, of course, would be to find some Norwich City fan who took a picture of him during his playing career, and is willing to release the photo. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• His wife is a redlink. On balance, I think possibly she should be delinked, like his son. Though both may justify redlinks at some future point, I don't think it can be justified at the moment. Similarly, have the other redlinks been checked to see if they should be redlinks or not? The ones I would question (or be unsure about) are Scotland national under-15 football team and James Hollman, and also the businesses in the 'After football' section. Apologies if this has been addressed in a previous review.
  • Wife is definitely notable. I'll turn her blue in time. Son should be delinked. I'll check the others. --Dweller (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Son was already delinked, I was placing him on a par with his mother saying that she should be delinked, like the son is. Happy for the redlinks to stay, as long as they have received some consideration. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• The categories and templates at the bottom of the article look fine, though he is listed in Category:Scotland B international footballers, though this is not mentioned in the article. Can/should this be sourced and mentioned?
  • I have no information on it. In a biog of a full international, it doesn't really seem necessary to expound on it. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not fussed either way. Just wanted to be sure it had been raised at some point. Maybe at some future point, someone will work on the Scotland B team articles (presuming they exist) and pop over here to add something. It would be nice to know how many matches he played for Scotland B and when. How is this handled in other football biographies of full internationals? Again, left it unstruck in case anyone else wants to comment (I wonder if there is a way to half-strike a comment?). Carcharoth (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Actually, looking at Scotland B national football team, I've struck this, as the football national B-teams are only occasional teams, not regular ones.
• I followed the FIFA external link, and noticed that as well as the 1994 World Cup qualification campaign, he is listed as playing in the '1983 FIFA U-20 World Cup', which appears to be the 1983 FIFA World Youth Championship. Is the FIFA site incorrect, or is this just missing from the article? This took place in June 1983, before this bit: "he was called up for the Scotland under-21 team, and made his debut in November 1983 against East Germany". There is nothing in the 'Internationals' section about the June 1983 youth international tournament, only the 1982 European one (which the FIFA record doesn't cover for some reason). Is it difficult to source a complete record of his youth international career? Not to bang the drum about the utility of 'what links here', but he is linked from 1983 FIFA World Youth Championship squads, so it is trivial to spot this sort of thing, providing the links from the templates at the bottom are not overwhelming things too much it is not difficult to check through less than 250 links to make sure nothing substantive has been overlooked.
  • That's a bad call by me. His autobiography has a detailed description, particularly of a fearsome encounter against the hosts. Can't think why I left it out. I might have meant to come back and fill it in, but I'm not sure... I've been working on this for a long time. Watch this space. --Dweller (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. Some might argue it's unduly detailed, but I think the challenges for a young player were immense and he came through with great credit among the Scotland hierarchy. It's also, like much of his story, quite entertaining ;-) --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Gunn appears to have been briefly captain of Norwich City - see Captains of Norwich City F.C.. Can/should this be sourced and added to the article?
  • I'm not sure it's very important. Anyone disagree? It certainly wouldn't add much to this particular biog of "Mr Norwich City". Pretty much any longstanding player will have been captain at one time or another and the succession hasn't always been as neat as that article suggests. Neil Emblen's captaincy is far more interesting, by contrast. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not fussed. Does he mention it in his autobiography at all? Up to you, really, unless anyone else raises it. It is the sort of thing that someone might try and add later, so you'd need to be able to respond at that point, even if not here. I've left it unstruck it above, in case anyone else wants to comment. Carcharoth (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Gunn himself clearly thinks it's unimportant: he mentions the sale of John Newsome (Gunn was shocked) but no word on who replaced him as skipper. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Suggest adding Bryan Gunn Appeal (a redirect to this article) to Category:Cancer fundraisers. That would be an indirect way of including his cancer fundraising efforts in the appropriate category. The current anchored link from the redirect is also broken. Suggest fixing that and checking for other anchored links/redirects that may have been broken by renaming of section titles.
  • Ugh... I read that three times and still am not sure what you're asking for, other than your first sentence, which I can do. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • This is what you need to do. Change the stuff after the hash to ensure it seeks out the correct heading in the article redirected to. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks, technophile. There's no place like gnome. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
        • As far as I could tell, there were no other broken anchors. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
        • For more on links and anchored links and various workarounds and 'features', see the paragraph at the end of this section of WP:LINK. Also helpful is this section of WP:LINK. Most helpful of all is WP:ANCHOR (which leads to part of the 'help' namespace). Carcharoth (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall, a very readable article, one that I'd be happy to support after a second read-through later (though the review may close before then, I'll try and get back here before then) and if the substantive concerns above are addressed. I do have slight concerns about comprehensiveness, given the ease with which I found some missing bits. Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'll get back on the junior world cup material, which is a significant omission. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure. I haven't actually opposed, but won't be supporting until that is added. Did he do much at the U21 level, and could you confirm that you've double-checked the autobiography to make sure nothing else was left out that should be in the article? Carcharoth (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It's added, see above. He barely mentions the U21s, mainly because the matches were so low-key. One vs East Germany was watched by just 500 people. Gunn at this stage in his career was used to playing in top-level Scottish games in front of 40x as many and had played in front of what he thought was 100,000 people who were baying for his blood! The main U21 content is a hilarious story about some of the players getting caught being naughty boys... but Gunn wasn't one of them. I've read the book cover to cover. It's tempting to add everything, as it's a very readable book, but I think I've covered the essentials. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
      • OK. Based on that and the added youth international material, I'm happy to support (and will indicate that above in the correct location so it doesn't get missed). Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Thank you - and thank you for helping to improve the article. --Dweller (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.