Template:Did you know nominations/Russell Howarth

Russell Howarth

 * ... that when Russell Howarth was included in the England national under-16 team in 1999, he was the only player from a club not in the top two tiers of English football?
 * ... that Russ Howarth of the Minstermen had a trial with the Toffeemen in 2002?


 * Reviewed: Martin Ryerson Tomb

Created/expanded by Mattythewhite (talk). Self nom at 13:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since no-one else has commented to this, I'll have a go. I don't know anything about football, but I don't think this is a very "hooky" hook - what about something like:
 * ... that when Russell Howarth was included in the England national under-16 team in 1999, he was the only player from a club not in the top two tiers of English football?
 * Is that any better? —S MALL JIM   21:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —S MALL  JIM


 * Hmm. Looking at the cited reference, it states: "...is the only player with a Second Division club to make the squad." To me that doesn't appear to be the same as: "...was the only player with a club from below the top two tiers of English football", as in the original hook. —S MALL  JIM   21:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The source isn't as explicit as it could be, but it's basically saying that he was the only player not with a FA Premier League (tier one) or First Division (tier two) club. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry - my lack of knowledge may be causing nit-picking here, but how do we know that none of those selected was from a club in the Football League Third Division or the National League System? (I think I've got those terms correct - rather complex, isn't it!) —S MALL  JIM   19:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Using the Football Club History Database I've checked the clubs' divisions of each of the players who were in the squad, and they are all either Premier League or First Division clubs. If this isn't sufficient, could the hook perhaps be reworded to explicitly mention that he was the only player from a Second Division club? Mattythewhite (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's how you know, then yes, the hook will need rewording because you're using synthesis to support the statement (you should amend the article too). What do you suggest? "...the only player from a Second Division club" doesn't sound very interesting, though if it's an uncommon occurrence, and most people who know about the sport would recognise it as such, it might be OK. Perhaps you could find another reliable source that expands on it. Or failing that, you could try for another interesting fact about him, but to my untutored eye there doesn't seem to be very much :(  —S MALL  JIM   12:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Perhaps this quote from another source used in the article could be used instead as the basis for the hook: "Howarth is one of only two players from outside the Premiership or Division One and the only player from Division Three to figure in the 18-man squad".  So maybe something like "... that when Russell Howarth was included in the England national under-18 team in 2000, he was the only player from a club in the Football League Third Division (fourth tier of English football)?" (The source says he was named in the U17 squad, although the cited Rothmans Football Yearbook 2000–2001 source confirms it was the U18 squad.)  15:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These newspapers don't make things easy! That inaccuracy means we can't really use that one either - it doesn't reflect well on the source's reliability for a start. I'm going to suggest something radically different, going for a tease instead:
 * ... that Russ Howarth of the Minstermen had a trial with the Toffeemen in 2002?
 * based on this ref. I've adjusted the citation in the article to match. Hope you agree this is better - it should garner a few more hits from those who don't know what it's about. Say yes and I reckon we're good to go. —S MALL  JIM   09:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to me; if you think that's the better hook then great! Mattythewhite (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Except - aren't you required to review another editor's nomination, per point 5 of Did_you_know? —S MALL  JIM   10:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh right - the last time I made a DYK nomination was in June so that must be a new(ish) rule. I'll have to get cracking then! Mattythewhite (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about it then? Will you review something, or shall we close this as ineligible? —S MALL  JIM   23:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, slipped from my mind (and a dodgy internet connection isn't of great help...). I've now initiated a review of Martin Ryerson Tomb.  Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks. If anyone wants to check this before moving it to prep, the cited fact is from the second sentence of the last para of Club career/York City. —S MALL  JIM   09:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also your references cite this paper as Evening Press, whereas it seems to call itself The Press or York Press. —S MALL  JIM   21:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Press has been the title of the newspaper from April 2006 onwards, but before that it was known as the Evening Press. Since the article is from 1999 I think it's more accurate to use the older title.  Mattythewhite (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah right, The Press (York) says it was known as the Yorkshire Evening Press, but I suppose that's something for consideration by your GA reviewer. —S MALL  JIM   19:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, is the correct term "player with a club" as you had it, rather than "from a club" that I inadvertently changed it to? —S MALL JIM   19:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think either is perfectly fine. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)