Talk:Eduard Streltsov/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Resolute 00:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Images: Three fair use images showing nothing more than Streltsov's person is pushing it. I'm not going to concern myself with that too much, but the FU rationale is pretty weak when all three are being used simply to identify the individual. Only one image is required for this.
• References: 53 references to one article? That might be a record! The book sources should include page numbers for each reference rather than just pointing all to the book in general. I'm concerned about the RSSSF references. Some of the links credit their originating source, but others don't (3, 19, 20, 22) Given how prominently these sources are used, I would like to see some evidence that this site can be considered reliable.
• Specific:
  • Watch for redundancy. i.e.: "Streltsov was still 16 when he made his debut for Torpedo,[1] and appeared in every league game played by Torpedo during his first season with the club, 1954, scoring four goals.[2] Torpedo finished ninth in the league" - does Torpedo need to be mentioned three times in quick succession? There are several instances of this throughout.
• Note A in the awards section seems unnecessary, as his being posthumously awarded a gold medal is already explained in the article.

Overall, a pretty good article on a player from an era where good sources are no doubt difficult to find. I am placing this GAN on hold in the hopes that some of these potential issues can be remedied. Resolute 00:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ta for the review.
  • I've deleted all the images but the top one.
  • References: RSSSF sources are usually acceptable on their own as reliable, see here for mainstream acceptance... as for the "book" references, I think you'll find that the references you are referring to actually refer to internet articles. References that do point to books are correctly filled in, giving page numbers and so on.
  • Redundancy reduced.
  • Note removed.
• Cheers. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and I'm satisfied with the link to RSSSF. As such, I'm passing the article. Regards, Resolute 21:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)