Talk:Steve Zakuani

Good Article

Given the events of this weekend, I naturally pulled up this article to read about the player and was pleasantly surprised to find a decent article with good coverage references. I'm going to put some effort into improving the article (cleaning up refs, expanding the lead, and adding any other points that may be missing) and get it to GA status. I'm doing this for two reasons: (1) to get to know more about this great player and human being, and (2) to pay a small tribute to him on Wikipedia. Get well Steve. #forSteve --SkotyWA^T_C 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

TODOs:

1. Add back referenced prose about first season accomplishments (had to remove them because refs were bad and couldn't find alternates)
2. Clean up refs for stats table
3. Expand lead
4. Current references in personal section are poor. Can they be replaced with better ones (possible rewrite of section needed)
5. Add Charity sub-section under Personal detailing the charity Steve created after going pro (kingdom-hope.org)

--SkotyWA^T_C 17:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been poking around with the page for sometime now. I was reluctant to bring it to a review since the interviews are perfectly fine sources, IMO, but expect them to be a roadblock. Cptnono (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The date formatting went from British(in the prose)/ISO(refs) to American in some parts. Is that to standardize it with other Sounders player articles? A quick check on if we are going with British or American spelling is also needed.Cptnono (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think's it's "editor's choice" in this instance. Either would be acceptable for a Brit doing all his notable activity in the USA. JonBroxton (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So which one are we doing? I don't have a preference but we need to get it uniform within the article.Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Go with US date formatting then. Looking at the article, that would probably mean less work in terms of how many dates to convert. JonBroxton (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I was going with American date formatting with my changes yesterday. Thank you so much for helping with this. It looks like info has been added back (by Cptnono) for his first season accomplishments. I've already nominated it for GA review, but my expectation is that we have at least a week before a reviewer picks it up. My goal is to work on it this week to get it complete. --SkotyWA^T_C 15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Only some of the info. Is it cool?Cptnono (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the stuff you added back for 2009 looks great. If we can find more to talk about him in 2009, that would be great, but we've at least got something now. For example, the article used to mention his first appearance being during the club's inaugural match (against RBNY), but I couldn't find a ref that mentioned it. I'd love to add that back if we could find a ref.

I just expanded the lead to generally cover most of the content in the article. Please proofread it and add anything you think I've missed.

I also see someone's added information about the charity he created, so I've marked that off the TODO list. Eventually, I think this could grow into it's own section, but for now this is sufficient. Thanks for the help everyone! Almost there (to GA status). --SkotyWA^T_C 18:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The charity thing was just from a quick search. I assume there is more out there somewhere.

Regarding the lead, I think we hit childhood and playing career. We might want to add a line in about his personal life just to make sure it is a proper summary but the childhood stuff might be sufficient. The length is also good. Might want to clarify that the first intl match was a friendly. Cptnono (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Striking the stats references issue since I see Cptnono followed up on it. Great work! --SkotyWA^T_C 05:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Stats

I am against these sections being updated on a weekly basis since editors tend to not add sources. I appreciate the effort and it is close to correct but since it is not correct (just the other day I found a major inconsistency) we need to stop it from happening unless editors actually provide a verifying link. So here are the links needed to make the table. Yes, we will need to remove parameters since they are not verifiable but I am sick of seeing it not kept up properly:

• 2011 (this is ongoing and will need to continue to be clarified. No updates should be allowed without checking the link and modifying the date)
• 2010
• 2009
• no year provided but should be sufficient for USL days

Cptnono (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with what you're saying here. Please go ahead and update the stats and reference links. Maybe we should add a comment at the beginning and the end of the section telling editors some guidelines for updating the stats. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this since it does not cover all competitions. I actually do like that source and table so we might be able to do only MLS and leave out Open Cup and other competitions. We would simply have to use a note. I don;t care either way but the adjustment by the other editor meant that the numbers did not match up.Cptnono (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Steve Zakuani/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	1a. Some minor issues which I'll fix myself.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	1b. No major issues, but see suggestions.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	2a. No issues found.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	2b. Several major issues, including dead links.
	2c. it contains no original research.	2c. A couple of unsupported claims.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	3a. No issues found, but see suggestions.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	3b. No issues found.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	4. No issues found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	5. No issues found.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	6a. No issues found.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	6b. No issues found.
	7. Overall assessment.

Reviewer: GW(talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• As of today (11 July 2011) this article has begun its first good article review. It will start with an examination of the article's content to make sure that sources say what they purport to say in the article, then the article itself will be judged alongside the six good article criteria, after which the table above will be filled with any notes and concerns. Throughout the review, any suggestions and comments will be offered below. Hopefully, the source examination and the criteria judging stages will be completed within the next couple of days, possibly tomorrow depending on real life commitments.
• Timeline:
  • 11 July 2011—Review started.
  • 12 July 2011—Review completed, conclusion: Put on hold.
  • 21 July 2011—Second review completed, conclusion: Pass.

Suggestions

• Y Numbers: Although there isn't any concrete guidelines, WP:ORDINAL does suggest that numbers from zero to nine should generally be written out, unless they are in sentences with triple-word numbers which are greater than nine, in which case the use of digits instead of words should be consistent. Therefore, the use of "4th" and "5th" over "fourth" and "fifth" should perhaps be reconsidered, as should the use of "23" over "twenty-three" etc., although there is nothing except convention stopping you from keeping the numbers as they are is that's what you choose, so long as this is consistent across the whole article.

Comment: Done here

• Honours: As an unknowledgeable reader (about Zakuani, not football in general) it came as a bit of a surprise to see the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup titles in the Honours section of the article when no mention of these had been made in the prosed Professional section of the article. The Honours section should really act as a listed summary for titles described in the main prose.

Comment

1a.^ List of concerns:

• Y "Zakuani became cocky and brash while not focusing on schoolwork. He was released by 2003" → "Zakuani became cocky and brash while not focusing on schoolwork, and he was released from Arsenal by 2003."
• Y "He tried out but failed..." → "He tried out, but failed..." or "He unsuccessfully tried out..."
• Y "...spotted by the University of Akron at development centre..." → "...spotted by the University of Akron at a development centre"
• Y "Zakuani scored six goals his freshman season..." → "Zakuani scored six goals in his freshman season"
• ? "League Cup" in the statistics table doesn't make it clear it's referring to the play-offs
• Y "Cleavland" → "Cleveland"

1b.^ See suggestions re: consistent formatting of numbers

2a.^ There is a reference section containing external links to all sources

2b.^ Several major issues:

• Ref 1: "released by 2003"—source actually says 2002
• Y Ref 5: 404 error (dead link)
• Y Ref 6: 404 error (dead link)
• Y Ref 9: 404 error (dead link)
• Y Ref 10: 404 error (dead link)
• Y "MLS player profile in External Links section: 404 error (dead link)
• Y Ref 23: Stats for 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup absent (resolved via replies section)

2c.^ Two claims unsupported:

• Y Stats for the 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup
• Y 2009 and 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup titles

3a.^ See suggestion re: honours

3b.^ The article does not go into unnecessary detail

4.^ The article is neutral to the unknowledgeable reader

5.^ The article has no recent history of edit warring

6a.^ 1/1 images are tagged with a valid copyright status

6b.^ A suitable photograph of the subject has been placed into the article's infobox, so clear that it leaves no ambiguity and therefore requires no caption

Replies

• I've addressed each one of these with the lone exception being "7 assists" only because it appears in a context where digits are being used to talk about player statistics. Since "20 goals" appears right before and "23 games" appears right after, I think "seven assists" would be weird in this particular context. I don't want this to be the cause of failing the GA review though, so if you still disagree, I'm happy to change it. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • My understanding of "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures" is that it is correct as is. Assists:Game is a ratio where the numbers are being compared to each other. I don't feel strongly about it at all but do lean towards no change. Not a big deal if it is changed though. Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that if two numbers are used in the same context like, they're being compared, therefore they should all be either written full term, or in digits. I personally would write them out since that's what I was taught at school, but if you want to leave them as digits then I've no objections. GW(talk) 10:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• I've addressed all of the ref problems except for the USOC statistics. I'm still looking for an online source for that. I have them in the club's media guide book, so if all else fails, I'll reference that. I'll keep looking before I switch. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I checked this awhile back so that was my bad. There should not have been any deadlinks remaining and I dropped the ball over the last month or so on it.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I knew those stats were going to be an issue. I am for gutting that table since it was hard enough to get it to the state it is now. There is a mention on the talk page about this. What do you think if you cannot find RS, Skoty?Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Given how long it took for this review to get started I wasn't surprised to see deadlinks. If you need to use a book as a reference, that's fine; there's no obligation for all references on Wikipedia to be online. I obviously won't have it to hand but I'll assume good faith. GW(talk) 10:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• I've added some prose covering both USOC championships and a note on each that Zakuani was a starter in both finals. I've included refs for all of the new prose. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Noted, I've updated the review accordingly (I'll update the table when all issues are resolved) GW(talk) 10:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Nice catches copy editing wise and thank you for the thorough review.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hey GW. Can we get some advice from you on the statistics table? I cannot find a source to get those cells in the stats table sourced so I wanted to get your opinion on the choices available. 1)Replace the template that makes the table so that it only spells out league games 2)Remove the table altogether until sources can be found for those cells 3)Add multiple references to those cells (for example: There would be 4 refs for the 2009 Open Cup "Apps" cell). Conversely, we could consider it those couple cells as having material not "likely to be challenged" :) Let us know what you think and we will get it squared immediately. Cptnono (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In my own work, I make sure all stats are referenced, or else they're not put in at all since any unreferenced material in a BLP can be removed without haste. However, I often look at FAs for good examples to provide inspiration on good sports article writing, and I noticed that a lack of referenced stats doesn't seem to have prevented Thierry Henry from achieving FA status. So if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for Zakuani, and if the rest of the table is good, then it's fair to AGF. I don't like it, but I won't let it obstruct a positive GA. Furthermore, apologies for the delay—my laptop's broke with spectacular timing. But I'm sure you both were at the match last night so I'm sure this was the last thing on your mind. I'm afraid to say I'm a lifelong United fan though... sorry! GW(talk) 21:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

ENVAR

Consensus up above was to go with American English (although it may need a quick double check). I reverted this. I don;t really mind switching it to British English if someone want to do the whole article. This would go against consensus formed above so if someone does decide to do it I hope that they consider if it is really worth the effort.Cptnono (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If it goes to consensus again (though I agree that has already been achieved and the result was American English), then my personal choice would be for American English given the player is almost solely notable in America. He hasn't done anything in Britain notable enough to supercede his MLS career. His brother, who currently plays for Peterborough if I recall correctly, should be British English by the same logic, for example. It's where they're most notable. GW(talk) 19:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steve Zakuani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905014508/http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Lamar-Hunt-U-S-Open-Cup/2009/09/Seattle-Sounders-Become-Second-Expansion-Team-to-Claim-US-Open-Cup-Crown.aspx to http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Lamar-Hunt-U-S-Open-Cup/2009/09/Seattle-Sounders-Become-Second-Expansion-Team-to-Claim-US-Open-Cup-Crown.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610070332/http://www.uslsoccer.com/teams/2008/roster/934451.html to http://www.uslsoccer.com/teams/2008/roster/934451.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)