Talk:Kenwyne Jones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKenwyne Jones has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 21, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 12, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 20, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 24, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 28, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Kenwyne Jones[edit]

Come on, I'm sure there is a better picture of Kenwyne Jones than the one up here and unfortunatly I like to see people's faces, not their backs!

--Rboxer (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that easy to find a free-use image really. That one is pretty bad, but was the best I could find. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The difficult second album"?[edit]

What is this section actually about. I suspect vandalism. Does anybody agree? I think it should be removed. How do we do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.167.114 (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I've gotten rid of it. The sunder king 16:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

checkY done Can someone please tag sentences that need references, so i know what i need to look for.  Sunderland06  16:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Unfortunately, I am going to have to fail this article. It does not meet several of the criteria. The biggest problems are:

  1. The article is not stable. 47 edits in the past 4 days shows that the article was not yet ready to be nominated. It can be renominated once the editing has slowed down.
  2. Done The article is missing references for several facts (married with three children, played against Liverpool and Portsmouth, last game of the 2006-2007 season, 16 goals in the 2006-2007 season).
  3. Done Reference 19 needs a publisher.
  4. Done by Rudget The article needs copyediting by someone with strong punctuation skills. There are comma errors throughout the article that distract from the text.

The article can be nominated again once these issues have been dealt with. I feel compelled to mention that it might be hard to find a reviewer who will pass an article that is so short. It is very early in Jones' career, and reviewers may feel that the article will change too much in the future to warrant GA status at this point.

If you feel this review is in error, please feel free to bring it up at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment.

Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support a reviewer's right to fail an article without a hold, but this is one case where all of these changes could have been completed easily within the week-long hold. Some of them are already fixed. More importantly, you've completely misinterpreted the stability criterion of WP:WIAGA. Stability means that there are no edit wars or content disputes on-going, not that no edits are made to the article. Even substantial improvements can continue to be made, as long as there is no conflict over content. It's too late now (unless you're willing to reconsider and place this on hold), so it's best that the article simply be renominated once the changes have been completed, rather than a GAR. But in the future, I would strongly encourage you to place articles whose only issues are a few citations and a copyedit on hold. VanTucky 19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be better for this article to go to peer review first - a lot of the problems identified above could then be ironed out before the article is put up as a candidaite for GA ststus..Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, however you want to address it is fine (of course). As long as the above things are fixed before the next GA nomination. VanTucky 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stability criteria includes the fact that a stable article "does not change significantly from day to day". 47 edits in 4 days shows a lot of change from day to day. This was the determining factor in opting to not put it on hold at this time. Even if the changes were made, the article would not necessarily be stable. My recommendation is to get the article to its best quality before nominating it so that instability will not be an issue when the review takes place. I have nothing against this article being nominated again, but this should happen after making sure that the article is at its best. As I mentioned before, I will also not be offended if you want to take this review to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Different reviewers may have different opinions. I hope this helps, and I hope to see this article as a GA soon. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. Ask around at GAC, none of the experienced reviewers fail articles or don't provide holds because edits are still being made. It makes no sense; this is a wiki, and no article is ever really static unless it's been protected. The point of stability is that an article is stable enough for a fair review to take place. Obviously this is true with this article, and to say otherwise is obeying the letter of the law and not the spirit. VanTucky 18:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then nominate it for a review when it is ready. Don't nominate it while you are still trying to get it to GA quality. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody objects, I'm going to pass this as a GA. The stability thing is for a bomb going off outside the school that is the article subject, not for someone working to improve the article. Thus, I see no reason why it can't be passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Stability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the quality of the prose (particularly the punctuation) is not at a GA level, which is a major reason for my request that the article undergoes a full review rather than just being given a pass to make a point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I can do a re-review of prose etc. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would amount to fast-tracking the nomination because the editor decided to nominate it when it wasn't ready. If a large number of edits were necessary in order to get the article to a GA level, they should have been made before the nomination. Since other articles in the "Sports and recreation" list have been waiting up to 45 days with no review (this article was on the list for only 4 days before a review), it would be more fair to re-nominate the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When he nominated the article it looked like this. I would say that's ready for a review. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why so many edits after the nomination? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...to improve it further? Making articles better is legal at all times. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just ridiculous. We're actually considering rewarding someone by skipping him to the front of the 45-day lineup because he didn't feel like the article needed to be at its best before nominating it? And why am I getting attacked because I'm the only person who thinks that it's reasonable to follow the GA criteria? It was changing signficantly and was therefore not stable. Either re-list this at GAN or take it to GAR per Wikipedia guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whatever. I've put it back at GAN in the place it was before this fail. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a neutral observer who has been reading this discussion over the past few days, it seems to me that the original reviewer is being overly bureaucratic. Surely the whole idea behind GAC and FAC is drive the improvement of articles, so why should the editor be punished for doing just that? There seems to be pretty strong consensus on the GAR talk page that a hold should have been awarded whilst the minor problems were ironed out. This wouldn't have been "fast-tracking". It almost seems that the reviewer has become personally involved and has been harsh because their own GAR has been delayed. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This I agree with. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I applied the criteria as I understood them. If the stability criterion doesn't mean what it says, the wording needs to be changed. I don't see that as overly bureaucratic. I am simply finding that I am being attacked for trying to cut down on the backlog to the best of my ability. Yes, I'm frustrated by the wait for reviews for my articles. I have seen editors discussing the idea of nominating articles and then getting them ready in order to get them higher on the list for reviews. I believe that this was the case here, and I don't think it should be rewarded by a rubber stamp pass. Kenwyne Jones is listed at GAN, so anyone can review it at any time. I've learned my lesson about reviewing articles, and I can assure you that I won't be reviewing any more for a long time to come. For me, it's just not worth the criticism. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stability criteria is there to counter edit warring and massive changes in the POV of the article/disputes on the article contents. Kenwyne Jones isn't involved in any disputes of this nature, so the stability criteria doesn't apply. It's overly bureaucratic to call numerous changes of a similar nature a sign of instability. —Dark (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review (2)[edit]

I have looked over the article three times, and have actually found no problems with it. It is very well written, and is fully sourced. I am passing this article. iMatthew 2008 20:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment[edit]

(See top of page.)

Peanut4 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International goals[edit]

The two goals scored in the Gold Cup match against Curaçao on 11 November 2014 are missing from this table. (See report. 92.26.160.206 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kenwyne Jones. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenwyne_Jones&oldid=1217114852"