Wikipedia:Peer review/James Milner/archive4

===James Milner===


 * Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hoping to give this the final push to FA status. Has already failed once mainly due to the poor prose so that is the main thing I want to address in this PR. Buc (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/James Milner/archive4.

Comments from Woody
Just remembering something from when I recently went through the prose, all statements in "quotation marks" need to be explicitly cited, especially the early stuff on Souness etc. I think the three copyeditors have tightened up the specific grammar/spelling issues and have reduced redundancy. There is still a slight whiff of fanzine about it though. Woody (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I'd love to know what your problem with the prose is so I can try and fix it. Buc (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Examples of my fanzine issues: Woody (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Main body
 * Milner scored again, using "a beauti[ful]" first touch of the ball to avoid  Why not just stick to facts, Milner scored with his first touch.
 * Why? gives a better idea of how good a goal it was.
 * Why do encyclopedia readers want to know how "beautiful" a goal was?
 * It got people talking about how good a player he was. Buc (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Before the stint, he saw it as a valuable experience that would progress him as a player. What has that got to do with his career?
 * It gave him experience.
 * It is the tone that isn't good Buc.
 * Reworded
 * Milner later confirmed that he was happy about his future at the club and with the new manager. Good for him, not really telling us much though. As I said earlier, I think it still has fanzine issues and it isn't very encyclopedic in its current form.
 * Tell you about how he felt at the time.

To be honest, much of the style of play section can be rewriten or wiped.
 * Style of play
 * Milner believes that he is a hard worker, confident and relaxed, and he expresses a willingness to play as much as possible. Not very encyclopedic, or neccessary. It sounds like it is coming from his agent.
 * It's hard to find stuff about his Style of play. This is the best I can do.
 * Milner is described on his official site as "a good reader of the game". : So what?
 * So he's a good reader of the game I guess. Buc (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's hard to find stuff about his Style of play. This is the best I can do.
 * If it ain't good, chop it. Just write from a neutral point of view. These are symptoms of a problem Buc. The whole section needs rewording. The information is ok, it just needs to have a neutral tone. I tried to show you, with this diff, the direction it needs to go. Whether you act on it is your prerogative Buc... Woody (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is if I get rid of the info, the aricle will no longer be comprehensive. Buc (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The information is good, the tone isn't. It needs rewording and the fanzine type prose needs to be eliminated. Rewording will not affect its comprehensiveness.
 * See this is the circular problem that keeps comming up. No matter what I or anyone else does, no matter how many c/e I ask for, no matter how much feedback or advice I ask for, I keep just getting told the prose isn't good enough. There is really nothing more I personally can do about this, clearly I can't see what others can. Buc (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * References
 * Statements in quotation marks need specific references. Particularly the Souness stuff.
 * They are. Wouldn't have them in there if they weren't. Buc (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By specific, I mean after the quotes as in Souness said "Milner was bad" instead of Souness said that "Milner was bad" in a diatribe about playing standards at the northern Club, which was not well received by critics. 
 * Can't find that quote anywhere in the article. Buc (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a quote on purpose, it was an example. Where you have quotation marks, especially on the section about a team of Milners, you need to have quote-specific citations. Woody (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the end of any sentences with a quote you'll find the ref. Buc (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Peanut4

 * A few non-related prose points:
 * I still don't understand the need for the first couple of sentences at the start of the career section. It seems only to be an overview of his career and repeated info from the lead. Though maybe I'm wrong - anyone else with any thoughts on this?
 * I agree. I didn't add this so I've removed it now. Buc (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would rather Milner's international career, albeit as an under-21, be in a separate international section and not dilute his club career.
 * Maybe once he played for the full team but at the moment it's not notable enough.
 * He does have a record number of U-21 appearances, and is notable enough for the lead. Peanut4 (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes notable enough to be mentioned. But not to have it's own section. Buc (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't his career statistics be the other way round, with the most recent season at the bottom. It is how timelines should be, and how infoboxes appear. Peanut4 (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote it like that and someone changed it. Change it back if you want. Buc (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say you were right in the first place. Peanut4 (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Autoreview

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead - first paragraph is one sentence long. Rework.
 * Why?
 * Because paragraphs shouldn't be one sentence long! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I expand it? Buc (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You should avoid single-sentence paragraphs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Expanded
 * Lead - second para has "Milner" three times, third para has "Milner" zero times. Reads strangely.
 * What's the rule here?
 * Rules?! Readability.  Good (if not brilliant) prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't help me at all. Removed them from the lead anyway.
 * Buc, you're aware of 1a as much as I am. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware but I don't really understand it. Buc (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Infobox - national stats updated in Nov 2007, is that up to date?
 * Far as I know.
 * So it's still correct now, so update it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What update the fact it's still up to date even though nothing has changed?
 * Headings - strange to have a Return to Newcastle United as a subsection of Newcastle United.
 * Because he went to Villa on loan while he was at Newcastle.
 * I know why but it looks and reads strange. Be more imaginative (to a degree...). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok how about "Return from Villa"?
 * "two years in row" - English.
 * "Over his entire career, as of October 2007, he" - it's late Jan 2008, this needs updating.
 * I didn't add this. Is it worth removing?
 * 'The BBC even asked..." - this has POV hints. "even asked"?  Just "asked" would be sufficient.
 * ""a beauti[ful]" as above this is unnecessary. Also, it's a microscopic quote which has even be paraphrased (per your [ful]) so it's just not worth it.
 * Just changing from present to past tence.
 * Sorry, tense does not affect the word beautiful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, changing "beauty" to "beautiful" then.
 * "His good run of form" or "His run of good form" - which is it really?
 * "Throughout the season Milner was positive about his team. He remained confident that Villa would recover after making a poor start to the season and praised the quality of the squad, as well as its spirit.[27]" - who cares?! All players are most likely to be "confident" they would do alright.  This is fanzine stuff.
 * It's hard to find interviews of him while he was at Villa. Best I can do.
 * What I'm saying is, it's a non-event. It isn't worthy of inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was told this section was too short so I was trying to exspand it.
 * "The newly appointed Newcastle manager Glenn Roeder appeared to appreciate Milner's ability more than Souness and expressed a desire that he remain a Newcastle player. " - this uncited and reads like WP:OR.
 * Fixed.
 * "This — the departure of O'Leary and the shortage of transfer funds at Villa — meant that a deal to sign Milner permanently seemed unlikely." - doesn't make sense to me.
 * Fixed
 * "...continued to impress..." prove it. Quite POV.
 * What follows is what proves it.
 * No, not at all. He scored a goal in a game against Switzerland.  So did two other players.  Did they impress too?  What about the defenders who kept Switzerland down to two, did they impress as well?  It's your opinion that scoring a single goal against half-rate U-21 opponents who have no real league in a match where England scraped a 3-2 win is "continuing to impress". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Allardyce highly praised Milner during the season, saying, "He can only get better from here".[54]"
 * Probably should be "Allardyce praised Milner highly..."
 * This is funny because "only get better from here" could mean he was absolutely terrible. Work needed to make this sound appropriate.
 * The sourse talks about how Allardyce praised him.
 * Well, if the source writes like that it's a poor source. You can paraphrase.  You know what I mean here, don't just point me to the ref. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed quote.
 * "In January 2008, Milner was reported to be delighted..." who cares?! Him and about 200,000 other people.  Fanzine again.
 * Again hard to find stuff about Milner. This is the best I can do.
 * So leave it out. It's really not worthy of inclusion.  I was delighted about Keegan being appointed too, what does that have to do with Milner? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's his opinion of his new boss.
 * What about his opinion of other things? It's irrelevant.
 * What other things? Buc (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Milner is described on his official site as "a good reader of the game". "
 * Presumably you're talking about a website?
 * Well he's not going to say he's a bad reader of the game on his own website, is he? Is this a decent source?
 * It's hard to find negative stuff about him.
 * Yes, but the point is it's his own website so it's hardly NPOV is it?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it's not JamesMilner.com, there is no such site. Buc (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it his website or not? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No it's not. It's the Newcastle United website. I changed the text accordingly, though not sure if his own club website is appropriate either. Peanut4 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do we need those four external links?
 * Why not?
 * WP:EL. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now this is more what I had in mind thanks. Buc (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm touched Buc. Woody (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm "doing a Gazza".. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Use of non neutral language - avoid praising as the voice of the encyclopedia. If you want to describe the beauty of his play, find reliable sources who've done so and quote them. However, avoid over-use of this, as it can lead to a feel of hagiography and (worse) lack of balance. Also, if you come here, it's because you're soliciting the opinions of other users. There's a fine balance between challenging issues raised because you don't understand them and challenging them because they're critical of "your" article. The former is fine. The latter is bad. And currently, you're giving the impression of the latter, which will make people wonder why they bother giving their efforts to reviewing. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)