Talk:Peter Canavan

GA nomination on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Reasons for verdict and suggestions:

• Category 2a - Although mostly well referenced, there were a few glaring omissions, the most important ones being information from the infobox. For example, D.O.B, place of birth and height. The very first paragraph of the lead is completely unreferenced. The infobox states that club scores and appearances are correct as of a certain date, but where has this information come from?
• Category 2a (2) - The second paragraph in "Under-age career" (In 1988, Canavan won the Ulster minor Championship, but lost in the All-Ireland semi-final to Kerry. Canavan captained Tyrone to two All-Ireland Under-21 Football Championships (U-21) titles in 1991 and 1992, having been on the team which lost the 1990 final, again to Kerry.) is unreferenced
• Category 2a (3) - "...the two perfectly matched teams were heading for a draw..." - in whose opinion was that the teams were perfectly matched?

On the whole, this article is pretty much fine. The prose flows well, the article mostly meets WP:MoS (to WP:WIAGA standards anyway) and covers most of the man's life and career. It's mostly NPOV, with noted criticism about his indiscipline. Although not critical for GA status, if that could be expanded on, it would be welcome. The article is stable, and all images have fair use rationale and are used well.

The issues I've noted are minor and I'm sure you'll have this sorted within 2 rather than 7 days. I will be back in 7 days to re-review the article to pass or fail it. If the article has been improved in the meantime, in the areas I've mentioned and you feel it now meets GA standard, drop a note on my talk page and I'll come as soon as reasonably possible to re-review. Good luck and happy editing! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

cheers for the review. i have addressed the issues now i think, because moet of the references were already in the article, so I just used them in the places you said.--Macca7174_talk 10:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Having re-reviewed the article, I now believe it meets GA standards. Congratulations! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

disciplinary problems

This section is pretty iffy...the first incident was a minor one that happens in every match. It seems to be selected purely because it has a source, even though the source's version of events is pretty misleading.

The second incident is ultimately a rumour.

Canavan does have a reputation for aggression, especially in Ulster - unfortunately though, as you observed, I had difficulty locating sources. With regard to the incidents you mentioned, the Kerry off-the-ball incident was criticised in the media as well as in the manager's autobio. The club game incident was particularly notorious at the time, but the copy clearly indicates that Canavan's direct involvement is unclear.--Macca7174_talk 10:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Peter Canavan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is OK, probably an 7/10. I have merged two small paragraphs with the ones above them to improve the flow.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

It needs updating as I believe the 2008 Dublin marathon has already been run.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

The image of him scoring a goal is in a poor place as on many resolutions it disrupts the heading below it. It should be moved up a paragraph or two.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail: