Talk:Leon Leuty

Youth career

@GiantSnowman: Hi, I appreciate you have a vested interest in the article as the creator, which is fine, so I don't want to get into any minor disputes. Just wondered if you could consider the text from the source regarding involvement with, I assume, Rolls Royce Leisure F.C. (in his own words), which states as little as "I made my come-back with Rolls-Royce". I don't know if this is adequate to classify as being part of his "youth career", particularly as he had meaningful trials with both Bolton and Chesterfield (neither of which I would plan to add to the infobox either). I know you're more on-top of football bios than me, but can you guide me why his apparent appearance for RR qualifies this determination? I plan to expand the article further with sources I have yet to assess, so it may be this becomes clearer further down the line anyway! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, it does not matter to me whether Rolls Royce is classed as 'youth' or 'senior', the main thing is that it is listed. Giant Snowman 21:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wasn't seeking your preference, but rather your understanding as to whether there is a policy or guideline for including casual/non-formal appearances for another club (I use the term loosely). Given he worked at RR at the time, it isn't unreasonable to expect he may have been given the chance to play a few games with them during his recovery, but I wouldn't have thought this would count as an official designation within his youth career (if there is something somewhere written which says this is the case, i'll be corrected). I am keen to get this article to a good standard, but I also want it to be accurate. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We include all clubs a player played for, whether that was amateur or professional or otherwise. We do not include trials/training clubs. Giant Snowman 19:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel like it should be clubs a player was at more formally (I mean, the trials he seemed to have I suspect were more significant than any casual appearance made for RR during recovery), however i'll trust that this is something you perhaps know more about than me (although it sounds like there is no policy guideline on this specifically?). I still have some material to work through though none seems to touch any further on this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, no formal policy, just nearly 2 decades of editing! Giant Snowman 21:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"just nearly 2 decades of editing" - you and me both! Alas, it seems from your response that the inclusion, or not, rests entirely at one's own preference and I don't presently consider it a significant enough issue to dispute over. There is plenty of material out there to otherwise build a solid article from. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leon Leuty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Bungle (talk · contribs) 18:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: PearlyGigs (talk · contribs) 22:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

Hi, Bungle. I'll do this review. There is a GAN backlog drive this month. Hope to let you have some feedback soon. PearlyGigs (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I've read the article and will select some citations for spot-check next. That might not be until tomorrow, though. PearlyGigs (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verification spot-checks

There are 35 citations in total, so I'll check nos 07, 14, 21, 28, and 34. The statements are:

FN 07 – He chose an engineering apprenticeship with Rolls-Royce, following in the footsteps of his father.

Verified. Actually, you could perhaps expand this a little with related content on page 13.

FN 14 – Bradford (Park Avenue), facing the threat of relegation – and – He was tipped for promotion to the senior team as centre-half, having twice been first reserve.

Citation used twice. Verified in both cases, although I had to tweak the wording of the second one a little.

Re Bradford and the threat of relegation, the citation could also be used later in that paragraph after especially as Bradford at the time were fighting relegation in the Second Division.

FN 21 – In August 1953, reports surfaced of Leuty's desire to leave Notts County.

Verified. By the way, this report also confirms that Bradford paid £17,000 for him in 1950.

FN 28 – He was described by the Daily Mirror in 1950 as being "England's best uncapped centre half".

Verified.

FN 34 – Following his death, funds were raised for the family through a charity match and a testimonial match, with amounts of £1,750 and £500 respectively provided to his widow.

Verified.

No problem with these citations so I'll move on to the main review of the article now, where I'll refer to the six WP:GACR requirements. PearlyGigs (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Regarding cite 21, I think it states that Notts County paid Bradford £17k (i.e. not the cost to Bradford, but the receipt), although this is contradicted by cites 9 and 12 (one of which is the player speaking himself), which indicates a £25k cost, and is what I went with in the article. Also fair enough on the prose adjustment near cite 14, though minor as you say. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Well written. There are no spelling or grammar problems and the article is an interesting read. The lead provides both a good introduction and a more than adequate summary.
WP:V and WP:NOR. The spot-check citations were all verified and I can't see any problems with sourcing overall; certainly no OR. The reflist is well-presented and complies with publishing standard.
Breadth of coverage. There is never much information available about footballers from Leon's era, apart from the really famous ones like Stan Matthews, so I would not expect this to be a large article. I think everything is within scope and the coverage is certainly broad enough to provide a good biography.
Neutral. No problems. Written objectively and meets NPOV.
Stability. No problems.
Images. Only the one in the infobox which is a good portrait of Leon. Public domain so, again, no problems.

A very good piece of work, Bungle. I'm promoting to GA. Well done and best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PearlyGigs, thanks for spending time to read the article and your positive overall individual assessment. I trust as a newer reviewer that you do not feel the need for a 2nd confirmation opinion, on the basis of finding no matters of concern that needed to be addressed? I'm aware that reviews during the drive are generally cross-checked anyway, so if you're confident nothing further needs to be done then no worries. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle:..... Do you feel that this was an adequate review? Basically we have a quick pass here that people are talking about..... ongoing concern. Moxy🍁 00:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moxy, i'm not aware who is talking about this review specifically? Aside, you'll note that I asked (discretely suggested) to PearlyGigs if they felt it wise to seek a confirmation of their assessment, as a new reviewer, for which a response has not been forthcoming. That isn't in itself a concern, if the reviewer feels it clearly passes as-is, and although unusual, there is no clear reason I should challenge that conclusion.

I am aware that reviews during the drive are generally scrutinised anyway, so if the reviewer neither feels the article has any issues, nor the need to respond to my query, then I'll just wait to see if anyone else comes along with a contrary view. It is possible that an article can already be in a GA passable state, though I accept typical etiquette is usually to at least offer some improvement suggestions regardless. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]