Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robin Friday/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011 [1].

Robin Friday[edit]

Robin Friday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it was in the middle of an FAC I felt was progressing quite well but was closed last week when I went away on holiday; to remove some of the clutter on the FAC page, I presume, because although there had been quite a few useful comments there were not yet any supports or opposes. I'm back and ready to work on it again, though, so I'm reopening the candidacy. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the circumstances, I'll let this FAC run, but in the future, if you want an exemption from the rule about two weeks between nominations, pls ask beforehand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of such a rule. Thanks for letting this one slide, I appreciate it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why such a huge quote in FN 12?
    • The source is in the format of a quiz: I wanted to have all of the correct answers there to save the trouble of actually doing the quiz to find out the answers (it doesn't give you the correct answer if you get a question wrong). —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting for quotes within quotes
  • What makes this and similar a high-quality reliable source? This?
    • Royals' Record gives a list of references here (scroll to the bottom), as does Historical Kits here. I thought they were both sound but I'll bow to consensus if it goes against them. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • FN 89: publisher?
  • FN 104: does this album have a catalog number? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw

  • Is it possible to get an appropriately licensed picture - with a fairly recent person I would have thought there might be one available.
    • I had one there before but it got taken off – I don't think it's necessary though. There's already a fair use image (the record sleeve) which serves as an illustration, so we can hardly argue that we need it for that. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of "Childhood" has quite a lot of claims - are they all covered by reference 5?
  • Would it be worth explaining what a Borstal is for non UK readers?
  • Would it be worth adding a links from "asphalters" to Asphalt?
  • As a non football expert the section in the "Reading - 1973–74 season" confused me - what is the difference between signing Football League forms on 23 January and signing a contract on 6 February 1974?
    • You don't need to be professional to play in the Football League, only to be registered to do so (to "sign forms"). It was relatively common in the lower divisions in the "good old days" for players to train only part-time because the professional wages were so low; teams would allow them to maintain other higher-paying professions in order to keep them on the books. I hope this helps explain. I have re-written the sentence thus: "Hurley registered the amateur forward to play in The Football League on 23 January 1974 and gave him his first-team debut four days later." If this is still not completely clear I'm open to suggestions. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 89 seems to duplicate some of the text in the body of the article (section 1976–77 season (from 30 December 1976)) - one or other could be shortened
    • I included the parts of the newspaper text I used as the source as I don't imagine that specific copy of the South Wales Echo will be too easy to get hold of. I would agree if it were a footnote, but it isn't. It's part of the sourcing. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend not to include long quotes. But that may just be personal preference.
  • Was he taken to court after being arrested for not having a train ticket?
    • No, it isn't that serious an offence; a (relatively) small fine would have been all. No court date for this is mentioned by any of my sources, in any case. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the inclusion of both a "footnotes" section and then "notes" under the references confusing - but this may just be personal preference.— Rod talk 18:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had no trouble with it, but I agree that it could be confusing. Have you got an alternative suggestion? —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In some cases the info in the note could be included in the text eg Note C - this levels of detail is included for many of the other games.— Rod talk 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems clearer to me now.— Rod talk 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On looking at your changes I also noticed "pub" (2nd para of "Borstal, first marriage and the Isthmian League"). I have been in the past that it is more encyclopaedic to write "public house" (despite common usage).— Rod talk 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed to public house as you suggested, and I've changed "Notes" in the references to "Source notes" in an attempt to make it clearer. And I've got rid of most of the quotes in the references, they don't really add much, actually; the only ones I've kept are the ones from the biography. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I reviewed at the first FAC and looked at the changes since then; no glitches seem to have been introduced in the process of copy-editing, thankfully. The only thing I have to add is that I'm not wild about the two sources Nikki mentioned. I remember previous articles being asked about Historical Kits, but not whether it was ever established as reliable. Not familiar with Royals' Record, but if more reliable sites/articles are avaliable for the facts this cites, I'd consider replacing it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've replaced the references; have a look. Added Sedunary and Devlin refs, and an official Cardiff City one. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comments. This is a fine, well-written article, which I expect to support once a couple of minor issues are addressed. Switched to support.

  • "The local controversy surrounding the interracial relationship caused the couple and their circle of friends to be isolated socially, and even to be physically attacked one night in an Acton public house": who was attacked? Friday, the couple, or the whole circle of friends?
  • "He openly smoked spliff and dropped pills": sounds like this should be "spliffs"; can you check the source?
  • "Per MOSQUOTE, the cquote template should be reserved for pull quotes. I'd suggest making the "Even if it was three in the morning" quote just as a regular inline quotation. The later exchange between Friday and Thomas also should be fixed.
    • I liked having them pulled out, but okay. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, the MOS is a guideline, not policy, and you can argue against it in the name of common sense, but you have to convince others that there's a reason to disregard it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several places where you use four or even five citations for a fairly short section of only two or three sentences. Are all those citations really necessary? I know another FAC reviewer who regards five citations as a sure sign of a problem; I wouldn't go that far but I think you can serve the reader better if you can reduce them to no more than two, or perhaps three. More citations makes it harder for the reader to figure out where the information comes from.
    • Can you give me an example? Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      For example, you have four footnotes supporting this text: "and walked into Andrews's office on 20 December 1977 to announce that he was retiring from professional football. The club promptly released him and cancelled his contract". Seems unlikely that you really need four separate references for that. However, this is a very minor point and not something I think you have to change; I just think it looks odd and I suspect it's unnecessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those clusters of refs usually come at the end of a paragraph, and it's simply to stop me putting endless references on every comma and full stop. I can change it if you really like but I think it's okay. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need note [B] in the lead -- the controversial part is only mentioned in the body. Also, where that incident is covered in the body I think you should add something like "though this is disputed", since [B] makes it clear it may never have happened.
    • It's quite a well-known story which people would probably look for in the lead; that's why I put the note link in there. I think "according to legend" makes it clear that it didn't happen, doesn't it? Otherwise it would just say it happened. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      OK to both -- I wouldn't do it that way myself, but that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there no pictures of Friday, or videos of any of his goals, that could be used or linked to? A video of his "best goal ever scored" would be worth identifying.
  • Is the name of his third wife known?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC

I've switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comments - late to the party. Reading though now. jotting notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should Crystal Palace's school of excellence - be capitalised?
Friday became physically stronger and fitter - I suspect you could take "physically" out and it wouldn't change the meaning....

Otherwise...barring a few semicolons here and there that could just as easily be full stops...I think we are over the white line with a Support from me (the above are minor quibbles) - entertaining read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Prose seems there to me. ceranthor 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have spotchecks for accurate representation of sources and copyvio/parphrasing been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Somebody other than me will have to do this. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, this is going to be difficult because the great majority of the content is sourced from a book that's not previewable on Google Books. I had a look at some of the other sources and there was no problem with them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Mike. In such cases, it is not unreasonable to pick a paragraph worthy of examination and ask the creator to place the exact text from the source on talk, for comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds fine to me, I'm happy to do it whenever somebody is ready. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping my talk when done, pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- could you quote me some of the source material for the section on the wedding -- from "After the pay dispute" to the end of that paragraph? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LIZA FRIDAY: His mother gave me a small silver football boot and insisted I wore it, which I did, around my waist.

ROD LEWINGTON: At his wedding he invited everybody he could possibly think of. There must have been two hundred people there. It was on a Sunday and Robin turned up in a brown velvet suit, a tigerskin sort of shirt, open at the neck, and snakeskin boots. Southern TV cameras were there and Robin sat on the steps of the church and rolled a joint in front of them. Everyone was smoking. The bride showed up. We went into the church and the whole congregation was laughing because of the smoke. The vicar was laughing because he thought, 'What a happy congregation.' But they were all out of their brains. Then we went to the reception in Watlington Street, the grounds of a big old house there. And Robin was rolling these joints and handing them out to the relations, all these elderly aunts and uncles. By half past one that afternoon there wasn't a sober person there. They were either pissed or completely out of it. All these old women had their skirts tucked into their knickers and were jumping around the lawn and I just don't know what the vicar thought. I have been to a few weddings but never one like that.
Reading Evening Post, 8 August 1976
It's been quite a week of contract signing for Reading soccer star Robin Friday. After signing a new contract with the Elm Park club, Robin entered into a quite different one one with Liza Deimel on Saturday. Robin and Liza, both 24, were married in a church as his colleagues beat Charlton in a pre-season friendly. Liza was given away by her father, Mr Whithold Deimel, wearing a full-length cream dress with a small silver football boot hanging from her waist. She carried orchids. The Reading venue was kept secret but the road outside the church was still packed with people. Robin will shortly be starting his third season with Reading. The couple had a short honeymoon in Amsterdam and Robin was back at Elm Park today to continue training. The couple will be setting up home in Tilehurst Road.

LIZA FRIDAY: The wedding was the most hilarious thing ever. They came in their droves from London, they nicked all their wedding presents, they started beating each other up. Everybody was sitting around smoking dope, anything that had wedding paper on it went. By the time the whole thing was over we'd been stripped. My mother was going, 'I don't believe this.' We went to Amsterdam for our honeymoon and someone had given Robin a big lump of dope for a wedding present. I think loads of people did, because I was saying, 'These people haven't given us a present,' and he had pockets full of dope. When we got to Amsterdam airport he was speeding and he was paranoid. So he put all the dope in his mouth because he thought we were going to be searched – but he was also chewing gum. We spent the night – my wedding night – trying to separate the dope from the chewing gum and the more he tried to separate it the more it got on his fingers and the more aggravated he got. Some honeymoon. The next day we went on one of those canal boats and he was off looking for drugs within five minutes.

— The Greatest Footballer You Never Saw, pp. 140–141
  • Here we go. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good -- the description of his clothes is a fairly close paraphrase but you didn't really have much choice there, so that's fine. I would suggest changing "packet" to "lump" since the former implies wrapping; it may have been wrapped but the source doesn't say so. Other than that you can consider this spot-checked; thanks for typing in all that source material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I've changed to "quantity", as "lump" seems rather inappropriate in tone for this... Thanks for checking it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, both, for the extra effort ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Robin_Friday/archive2&oldid=1089083707"