Talk:Scott Carson/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I read through this article and did some copyediting. I have a short list of concerns:


 * 1) "Carson made only four appearances in the 2005–06 season, all in cup competitions, and in March 2006, was allowed to move to Sheffield Wednesday, who had a goalkeeping crisis, on loan to gain more first team experience, and to him help challenge for a place in the England 2006 World Cup squad." - this would probably be better split into two sentences in order to avoid six commas in one sentence.
 * 2) "However, with Carson the second choice to Reina and the signing of Charles Itandje in August 2007, Carson was loaned out again, this time to Aston Villa at a cost to Villa of £2 million." - this is a little awkward because of the lack of parallel structue between "Carson the second choice to Reina" and "the signing of Charles Itandje" - is it possible to reword one of those sections to make the sentence flow better?
 * 3) Some of the print newspaper sources are missing page numbers. Is it possible to find them?

Other that these issues, the article is very well-written. I will place the nomination on hold for a week to allow these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have attempted to address 1 & 2: let me know if further tweaks are required. Not sure about 3, as although my contribution was not insubstantial, User:Malcolmxl5 did the majority of the work on the article, and I think he added the print sources. I've dropped him a note to see if he is able to provide this info. --Jameboy (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He hasn't edited since 15 October, so I'm not quite sure what to suggest. --Jameboy (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll see if any of the printed references can be replaced with web ones. --Jameboy (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have looked over the citations in question. A few things I want to note about them: Because they are print sources, a reader would have to be in possession of the original source to verify them &mdash; the ability to verify them does not depend on the page number, although it would be helpful. Quotations have been provided from each of the print citations. An assumption of good faith may also come into play here, as a Wikipedia administrator is unlikely, although certainly not unable, to provide false information. Finally, the information cited is not contentious or defamatory. If Malcolmxl5 returns and is able to provide page numbers, that's great. As it stands now, though, I don't believe that their absent detracts substantially from the verifiability of this article.

With that said, I believe that the article meets the six GA criteria, so I am promoting it. Congratulations, and thanks for your hard work.

If you are able to review an article in return to help reduce the backlog at WP:GAN, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)