Talk:Seir Kieran GAA

Tone/Commentary
It's clear that someone has put a lot of effort into this article. Bualadh bos libh. However, it needs quite a bit of attention relative to the project norms on tone and commentary. Essay-style editorial flourishes like the below really aren't appropriate to the project, and should likely be reworked or removed. These are just two examples. A significant bulk of the article reads like this. This type of content isn't entirely compatible with the core pillars of the project (that WP is a fact based encyclopedia (rather than a free content host) and content is neutral in tone (rather than describing the POV of club members).) For example, while a lost match might have been "disappointing" to club members, it isn't to disinterested reader - or perhaps to the guys on the other team :). I'm going to tag the article for clean-up for now. Some work will be required on this article - otherwise it's at risk of significant summarising. If that were to happen, and given that someone clearly did a lot of work on it, it might be worthwhile moving the original content to the club website or a more appropriate content host. Guliolopez (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Notwithstanding such bitter disappointments, the Clareen side were consistently featuring in top-notch, close, exciting Junior matches." This would seem to be someone's opinion. If that's the case, there should be a cite and it should be clear whose opinion is represented here.
 * "Despite this catalogue of disappointment, Seir Kieran were improving in terms of both training and discipline - the two areas which had often let them down." Again, this reads like editorial commentary, and there isn't a cite to confirm the claims (that these areas were a problem - and then improved)...
 * These issues have not been addressed, so I am tagging the article accordingly. If other feedback not forth-coming, will likely need to address directly (by extensively summarising content). Guliolopez (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just adding to this. No reference is provided which seems to draw a link between the church being built and the foundation of the club. Neither is any link drawn between the county board's statement about Parnell and the club's ability to field a team. Without verifiable cites it is very difficult for any reader or editor to validate the statements made. This is a fundamental tenet of the project. Per my note back in July, unless these issues can be addressed individually, taken to its extreme, there may need to be discussion on significant summarisation of the content. Guliolopez (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I will think over the points made above and do some editing to address them. This will take a bit of time though. Clareen72 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTWEBHOST
I said as much in 2015. And will state as much again in 2019. Wikipedia is not a free web-hosting service for this club. Unless the longstanding tone, OR and VER issues can be addressed here (in short order), then I'm going to take a fairly heavy-hand myself to address it. (Upon request I gave a "bit of time" to address the points that were raised in October 2015. It is now August 2019. By any measure, "a bit of time" is long since "up".....) Guliolopez (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)