Leigh Richmond Roose was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during the " The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |
Im sorry, but while this article seems to qualify in References, Broadness, Prose, and Images, it just plain doesn't appear NPOV, and I think it may be failing the MoS on introductions as well, the intro is very short(I think you could put in some of his most famous attributes in there to extend it out) and the POV seems to creep in with it. I mean look at some of these sentences:
And the playing style paragraph seems to me little more than a large collection of various, highly favorable quotes about the guy, and while its all well and good that he's got verifiable acclaim, a section that long and on a topic which, well, doesn't seem entirely worth so much text seems to be serious overkill. Things like "He was well qualified" or "flirted dangerously with whatever" might be somehow substantiated with citations, but since it all seems to be either in books or non-inline articles, I really can't see why they aren't just sympathetic bits of POV. Most of the article just plain seems to be either praise or favorable tid bits on stuff concerning this guy, and that doesn't look right at all. Homestarmy 02:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is, necessarily, based on the information available. I put in as much balance as I could; Roose is described as reckless, for instance, and there's a section on his bad temper. Thre simply aren't that many more criticisms on record, certainly not without going back and doing a match-by-match study of his playing career. There was just a lot more hero worship in those days, I suppose.
As to the specific criticisms, "Roose was renowned as one of the best players in his position in the Edwardian period" is simply true, and note that it is not given as my opinion - "Was one of the best players" - but as reported fact: "Was renowned as...". This usage is justified in the text - cf. his selection to a "World XI". Would it really be POV to apply such judgements to Banks or Yashin, say? "Roose was well qualified to play in goal" is similarly justified, in terms of his height and weight, and the reasons for this, given the footballing style of the period, are explained.
Eccentricity: it's a contentious topic, of course - one man's eccentric is another's beacon of sanity - but, again, I think it is beyond question that Roose was regarded as eccentric, and probably played up to the image. I refer you to the following citations (full bibliographical information for the books can be found in the references to the article):
Finally, discussion of the number of clean sheets kept by the player - "A remarkable record not least because his team flirted dangerously with relegation in 1901, 1902 and 1904" - does, I concede, require some statistical justification, but I'm happy to provide it; if we look at, say, the record of Portsmouth, the team finishing fourth from bottom of the Premiership this season, one above the relegation places, we see that the team kept only 5 clean sheets in its 38 games, or 13.1%, compared to Roose's record of 27.8% clean sheets at Stoke ( http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/teams/Portsmouth.html). Hope this helps deal with your questions. Mikedash 09:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Disappointing that GA has failed -- very harsh treatment for an article that should surely rank among the best of Wikipedia's "fun and fascinating" class of articles. (And I agree with the point about don't need to give a citation for every statement). Worth another try in future. -- mervyn 12:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the visible spelling of his regiment's title to Royal Welsh Fusiliers - the spelling by which the regiment was known in his lifetime and until 1920, but retaining article link to Royal Welch Fusiliers, the subsequent spelling. Cloptonson ( talk) 16:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leigh Richmond Roose. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leigh Richmond Roose. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Leigh Richmond Roose was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during the " The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |
Im sorry, but while this article seems to qualify in References, Broadness, Prose, and Images, it just plain doesn't appear NPOV, and I think it may be failing the MoS on introductions as well, the intro is very short(I think you could put in some of his most famous attributes in there to extend it out) and the POV seems to creep in with it. I mean look at some of these sentences:
And the playing style paragraph seems to me little more than a large collection of various, highly favorable quotes about the guy, and while its all well and good that he's got verifiable acclaim, a section that long and on a topic which, well, doesn't seem entirely worth so much text seems to be serious overkill. Things like "He was well qualified" or "flirted dangerously with whatever" might be somehow substantiated with citations, but since it all seems to be either in books or non-inline articles, I really can't see why they aren't just sympathetic bits of POV. Most of the article just plain seems to be either praise or favorable tid bits on stuff concerning this guy, and that doesn't look right at all. Homestarmy 02:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is, necessarily, based on the information available. I put in as much balance as I could; Roose is described as reckless, for instance, and there's a section on his bad temper. Thre simply aren't that many more criticisms on record, certainly not without going back and doing a match-by-match study of his playing career. There was just a lot more hero worship in those days, I suppose.
As to the specific criticisms, "Roose was renowned as one of the best players in his position in the Edwardian period" is simply true, and note that it is not given as my opinion - "Was one of the best players" - but as reported fact: "Was renowned as...". This usage is justified in the text - cf. his selection to a "World XI". Would it really be POV to apply such judgements to Banks or Yashin, say? "Roose was well qualified to play in goal" is similarly justified, in terms of his height and weight, and the reasons for this, given the footballing style of the period, are explained.
Eccentricity: it's a contentious topic, of course - one man's eccentric is another's beacon of sanity - but, again, I think it is beyond question that Roose was regarded as eccentric, and probably played up to the image. I refer you to the following citations (full bibliographical information for the books can be found in the references to the article):
Finally, discussion of the number of clean sheets kept by the player - "A remarkable record not least because his team flirted dangerously with relegation in 1901, 1902 and 1904" - does, I concede, require some statistical justification, but I'm happy to provide it; if we look at, say, the record of Portsmouth, the team finishing fourth from bottom of the Premiership this season, one above the relegation places, we see that the team kept only 5 clean sheets in its 38 games, or 13.1%, compared to Roose's record of 27.8% clean sheets at Stoke ( http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/teams/Portsmouth.html). Hope this helps deal with your questions. Mikedash 09:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Disappointing that GA has failed -- very harsh treatment for an article that should surely rank among the best of Wikipedia's "fun and fascinating" class of articles. (And I agree with the point about don't need to give a citation for every statement). Worth another try in future. -- mervyn 12:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the visible spelling of his regiment's title to Royal Welsh Fusiliers - the spelling by which the regiment was known in his lifetime and until 1920, but retaining article link to Royal Welch Fusiliers, the subsequent spelling. Cloptonson ( talk) 16:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leigh Richmond Roose. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leigh Richmond Roose. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)