Talk:Peter Swan (footballer, born 1966)

Statistics

In his autobiography Swanny he describes how he scored 70 goals in 503 games. Trouble is that I have found that he clearly scored 62 goals in 445 games, as demonstrated in his 'Career statistics' section. He clearly got his stats from Soccerbase here.

Soccerbase is wrong. It shows his Burnley stats from 1995 to 1997 as 49 league appearances, and from 1998 to 2000 as 68 league appearances. Trouble is in his second spell he actually made 19 league appearances. Clearly Soccerbase put his total Burnley stats in his second spell row, in addition to his first spell stats in his first spell row. Thus giving an artificial boost. Soccerbase again is right in one part here and here, but not where it counts (in the profile summary). The fact alone that in his book he describes how he spent 1998 to 2000 almost crippled and recovering at Lilleshall shows him playing 70 games in 18 months as somewhat doubtful.

His book doesn't include a breakdown of his stats, but it shows that his book's throwaway comment of '70 goals in 503 games' was taken from Soccerbase. Now, if the media were to report his stats, if someone else was to do research for some other book then what source would they believe? Wikipedia or Swan's own book? A simple mistake from Soccerbase that could be very quickly corrected (if only they responded to e-mails), and look what the outcome is: a small part of history is changed.--EchetusXe 11:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Swan (footballer born 1966)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AGK (talk · contribs) 00:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	While I tend to write more formally than most editors, I don't think I am inaccurate in my assessment that this article is written in an unduly informal tone. I get the impression from the article that Swan was a favourite of the author, and that kind of thing is expected in a biography or obituary of the subject - not from the author of an enyclopedia entry. There are several anachronisms in the article, for instance "with Swan, the target man to Payton the predator, getting twelve of these", that I do not understand - and that presumably need to be rewritten in layman's terms; not all readers will be familiar with Swan, his clubs, or indeed the game itself.	Fail
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Over-reliance on Swan 2006 is concerning, but can be allowed in light of the presumable dearth of sources on the subject.	Neutral
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	An auto-biography is a poor source for a balanced article, but is used broadly to verify factual statements, like the dates of transfers. When issues like why the player wanted to transfer begin to arise, the use of the auto-biography becomes still more concerning, but on balance I am (barely) happy to accept that source.	Neutral
(c) (original research)	All content accords with WP:OR.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Article does not comply with the requirement that content be presented neutrally: reads as unduly flattering of the subject.	Fail

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	On hold pending the response of the requester of the review, but leaning towards failing the review unless the issues outlined above can be rebutted or corrected. I hope my feedback has been helpful so far, and I am watching this page and will see any response. AGK [•] 00:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I really do not see how the article is 'unduly flattering'. It shows him to be less than a model professional (boozing sessions before a big game), mentions him costing Port Vale promotion by getting sent off at Wembley, his concealing evidence to pass a medical examination he should have failed (maybe that counts as fraud, I don't know), refusing to play (similar to Carlos Tevez), openly admitting he signed for clubs "for the money" as opposed to sporting ambition, disrupting training sessions, getting into scuffles with teammates, disrespecting managers, 'delight' at his team being relegated, sent off ten times in his career, playing for Rothwell Town in 1988 (clear breach of his Leeds contract and a sackable offence), his numerous unsuccessful attempts at business dealings post-retirement, even the fact that his autobiography gets his own stats wrong!

The article shows that managers who rated Swan tended to lose their jobs, and those that did not get along with him went on to achieve enormous success (Howard Wilkinson & Neil Warnock). However to explicitly state this would be original research. I am happy to rewrite any sentences you think are unduly complimentary or unclear for readers unfamiliar with the player or the sport in general--EchetusXe 12:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; I may have mistaken the biographical tone for flattery. If you could reconsider my other remarks, I'll look again at the tone, and we can revisit the review in a few days. Thanks for responding. Regards, AGK [•] 13:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great. Any 'in world' terms or turns of phrase can be changed or linked to an appropriate article.--EchetusXe 14:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Any further comments? Neither page has been touched in two weeks. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the article unless there are any specific concerns anyone has?--EchetusXe 13:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)